XML 55 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2017
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 The costs of decommissioning a nuclear power plant are substantial. PNM is responsible for all decommissioning obligations related to its entire interest in PVNGS, including portions under lease both during and after termination of the leases. 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 $2.0 million, $4.2 million, and $4.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 into the qualified and non-qualified trust funds. The market value of the trusts at December 31, 2017 and 2016 was $293.7 million and $253.9 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 established a process for the payment of claims for costs incurred. Under the settlement agreement, APS must submit claims annually for payment of allowable costs. In 2015, PNM recorded $5.6 million, including $3.6 million credited back to PNM’s customers, for its share of the settlement under this process for costs incurred from July 2011 through June 2015. Thereafter, PNM began recording estimated claims quarterly. The settlement agreement 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, 2017 and 2016, PNM had a liability for interim storage costs of $12.3 million and $12.1 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, which was issued in September 2013. 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 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 cannot predict if there will be challenges to this action or the potential outcome of such challenges. 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 by adopting a new SIP every ten years. In the first SIP planning period, states were required 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. For all future SIP planning period, states must evaluate whether additional emissions reduction measures may be needed to continue making reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions. On January 10, 2017, EPA published in the Federal Register revisions to the regional haze rule. EPA also provided a companion draft guidance document for public comment. The new rule delayed the due date for the next cycle of SIPs from 2019 to 2021, altered the planning process that states must employ in determining whether to impose “reasonable progress” emission reduction measures, and gave new authority to federal land managers to seek additional emission reduction measures outside of the states’ planning process. Finally, the rule made several procedural changes to the regional haze program, including changes to the schedule and process for states to file 5-year progress reports. EPA’s new rule was challenged by numerous parties. On January 19, 2018, EPA filed a motion to hold the case in abeyance in light of several letters issued by EPA on January 17, 2018 to grant various petitions for reconsideration of the 2017 rule revisions. Although EPA’s decision to revisit the rule is not a determination on the merits of the issues raised in those petitions, EPA is likely to propose and take comment on additional revisions to the regional haze rules in the near future. PNM is evaluating the potential impacts of this rule. 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 required SJGS 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 included 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 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 SJGS ownership interest at that time, 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 $77.7 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 would reduce PNM’s ownership in SJGS by 418 MW), a possible increase in PNM’s ownership in SJGS Unit 4, the identification of a new 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 would retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 (PNM’s ownership interest was 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 was granted a CCN to acquire an additional 132 MW in SJGS Unit 4, effective January 1, 2018, with an initial book value of zero, plus the costs of SNCR and other capital additions (an aggregate of $20.7 million)
• | PNM was 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 (an aggregate of $154.9 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 (see Other SJGS Matters below and Note 17)
• | PNM was authorized to acquire 65 MW of SJGS Unit 4 as merchant 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 would 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 would not recover approximately $20 million of other costs incurred in connection with CAA compliance
• | The NMPRC would issue a Notice of Proposed Dismissal in PNM’s 2014 IRP
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 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 would not be recovered. 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 (“SJGS CSA”), described under Coal Supply below, 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. In addition, the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 would 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 on the Consolidated Statement of Earnings. 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, consisting of a $0.9 million expense due to a revision of the estimated net book value of SJGS Units 2 and 3, 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, and a $1.7 million reduction of the other unrecoverable costs 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 was 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 equaled $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. SJGS Unit 3 was shut down on December 19, 2017 and SJGS Unit 2 was shut down on December 20, 2017. At shutdown, the carrying value for PNM’s ownership share of SJGS Units 2 and 3 was comprised of plant in service of $439.4 million and accumulated depreciation and amortization (including cost of removal) of $188.3 million for a net book value of $251.1 million. As of December 31, 2017, these amounts were written off and offset by previously recorded losses of $128.6 million. PNM also recorded a regulatory asset of $125.5 million for the 50% of the undepreciated book value that is to be recovered from ratepayers pursuant to the December 15, 2015 NMPRC order described above. This resulted in the reversal of previously recorded losses of $3.0 million being recorded at December 31, 2017. In addition, PNM recognized a reversal of $1.0 million of previously recorded losses for other unrecoverable costs. These reversals, which total $4.0 million, are included in regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. 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 certain intervenors. Reply briefs were filed by NEE on January 9, 2017 and the parties presented oral argument to the court on January 25, 2017. The court has not rendered a decision on the appeal and there is no required time frame for a decision. In addition, 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 (see Coal Supply below). 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 – Prior to December 31, 2017, SJGS was jointly owned by PNM and eight other entities, including three participants that operate in the State of California. Furthermore, each participant did 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 might 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. Prior to the restructuring, the exiting participants owned 50.0% of SJGS Unit 3 and 38.8% of SJGS Unit 4, but none of SJGS Units 1 and 2, and PNM owned 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 (“SJGS RA”) on July 31, 2015. The SJGS 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 SJGS RA and agreed to acquire an ownership interest in SJGS Unit 4 on the December 31, 2017 exit date, but had obligations related to Unit 4 before then. Under the SJGS RA, PNM would acquire 132 MW and PNMR Development would acquire 65 MW of the capacity in SJGS Unit 4 from the exiting owners on the exit date 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. Consistent with the NMPRC order, PNM acquired the rights and obligations related to the 65 MW from PNMR Development effective on December 31, 2017 in order to facilitate dispatch of power from that capacity. The SJGS RA became effective contemporaneously with the effectiveness of the new SJGS CSA. The effectiveness of the new SJGS 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 on January 31, 2016. The SJGS RA sets forth the terms under which PNM acquired the coal inventory of the exiting SJGS participants as of January 1, 2016 and supplied coal to the exiting participants for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017, which arrangement provided economic benefits that were passed on to PNM’s customers through the FPPAC. The SJGS RA also included provisions whereby the exiting owners made 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. SJGS Units 2 and 3 were shut down in December 2017 and the restructuring of SJGS ownership under the SJGS RA occurred on December 31, 2017, including PNM’s acquisition of the additional 132 MW and 65 MW ownership interests in SJGS Unit 4 as set forth above. In accordance with the FERC chart of accounts, plant in service for utility assets acquired is to be recorded at the original cost of the assets less accumulated depreciation. Since PNM did not pay for any costs incurred prior to the effective date of the SJGS RA, PNM increased both plant in service and accumulated depreciation for the original cost of the acquired interests at that date, estimated to be $261.8 million, on December 31, 2017. As ordered by the NMPRC, PNM will treat the 65 MW interest as merchant utility plant that will be excluded from retail rates. In anticipation of the transfer of ownership, PNM entered into agreements to sell the power from 36 MW of that capacity to a third party at a fixed price for the period January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2022 (Note 8). Beginning in 2018, SJGS is jointly owned by five entities. Including the 65 MW considered to be merchant plant, PNM’s ownership share is 77.3% in SJGS Unit 4 and an aggregate of 66.3% in SJGS Units 1 and 4. 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 included 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 SJGS 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. PNM’s 2017 IRP (Note 17) filed with the NMPRC on July 3, 2017 presented resource portfolio plans for scenarios that assumed SJGS will operate beyond the end of the current coal supply agreement that runs through June 30, 2022 and for scenarios that assumed SJGS will cease operations after mid-2022. The 2017 IRP data shows that retiring SJGS in 2022 would provide long-term cost benefits to PNM’s customers. 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, 2, and 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 lbs/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 $88.9 million, including amounts incurred through December 31, 2017 and PNM’s AFUDC. See Note 17 for information on the NMPRC’s treatment of these costs in PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case. 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 DOI issued a Record of Decision on July 17, 2015 approving the 25-year site lease extension 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 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 or regulatory 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 an APS motion to intervene in the litigation on August 3, 2016. On September 15, 2016, NTEC, the current owner of the mine providing coal to Four Corners, filed a motion to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking dismissal of the lawsuit based on NTEC’s tribal sovereign immunity. On September 11, 2017, the court granted NTEC’s motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, terminating the proceedings. The environmental group plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissed order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 9, 2017. PNM cannot predict if such appeal will be successful and, if it is successful, the outcome of further district court proceedings. 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 filed petitions for review in the DC Circuit to challenge both the Carbon Pollution Standards for new sources and the Clean Power Plan for existing sources. Numerous parties also simultaneously filed motions to stay the Clean Power Plan during the litigation. On January 21, 2016, the DC Circuit denied petitions to stay the Clean Power Plan, but 29 states and state agencies successfully petitioned the US Supreme Court for a stay, which was granted on February 9, 2016. The decision means the Clean Power Plan is not in effect and neither states nor sources are obliged to comply with its requirements. With the US Supreme Court stay in place, the DC Circuit heard oral arguments on the merits of the Clean Power Plan on September 27, 2016 in front of a ten judge en banc panel. However, before the DC Circuit could issue an opinion, the Trump Administration asked that the case be held in abeyance while the rule is re-evaluated, which was granted. On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Energy Independence. The order puts forth two general policies: promote clean and safe development of energy resources, while avoiding regulatory burdens, and ensure electricity is affordable, reliable, safe, secure, and clean. The order directs the EPA Administrator to immediately review and, if appropriate and consistent with law, suspend, revise, or rescind (1) the Clean Power Plan, (2) the New Source Performance Standards for GHG from new, reconstructed, or modified electric generating units, (3) the Proposed Clean Power Plan Model Trading Rules, and (4) the Legal Memorandum supporting the Clean Power Plan. It also directs the EPA Administrator to notify the US Attorney General of his intent to review rules subject to pending litigation so that the US Attorney General may notify the court and, in his discretion, request that the court delay further litigation pending completion of the reviews. In response to the Executive Order, EPA filed a petition with the DC Circuit requesting the cases challenging the Clean Power Plan be held in abeyance until 30 days after the conclusion of EPA’s review and any subsequent rulemaking, which was granted. In addition, the DC Circuit issued a similar order in connection with a motion filed by EPA to hold cases challenging the NSPS in abeyance. On October 10, 2017, EPA issued a NOPR proposing to repeal the Clean Power Plan and filed its status report with the court requesting the case be held in abeyance until the completion of the rulemaking on the proposed repeal. The NOPR proposes a legal interpretation concluding that the Clean Power Plan exceeds EPA’s statutory authority. Under the proposed interpretation, Section 111(d) limits EPA’s authority to adopt performance standards to only those physical and operational changes that can be implemented within an individual source. Therefore, measures in the Clean Power Plan that would require power generators to change their energy portfolios by shifting generation from coal to gas and from fossil fuel to renewable energy exceed EPA’s statutory authority. The NOPR was published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2017, starting a 60-day public comment period and the EPA has indicated that it will continue to accept comments until April 26, 2018. Any final rule will be subject to judicial review. In a separate but related action, on December 28, 2017, EPA published the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for replacement of the Clean Power Plan. EPA indicated it has not determined whether it will promulgate a new rule under section 111(d) or what form a new rule would take, but is seeking public comment on that question. 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, EPA would be the regulatory authority responsible for implementing the Clean Power Plan on the Navajo Nation if the Clean Power Plan is ultimately sustained. In addition, the proposed rule recommended 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. PNM is unable to predict the financial or operational impacts on Four Corners operations if the Clean Power Plan is ultimately implemented as proposed and EPA determines that a federal plan is necessary or appropriate for the Navajo Nation. PNM’s review of the CO 2 emission reductions standards under the Clean Power Plan is ongoing and the assessment of its impacts will depend on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, future GHG reduction rulemaking, litigation of any final rule, and other actions the Trump Administration is taking 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, if any. 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 thresholds 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 indicated 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 should 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. On October 1, 2015, EPA finalized the new ozone NAAQS and lowered both the primary and secondary 8-hour standard from 75 parts per billion (“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 is 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 was expected to release final designations of attainment/nonattainment for areas by October 1, 2017. On June 6, 2017, the EPA Administrator sent letters to state governors announcing that EPA was extending, by one year, the deadline for promulgating area designations. However, on August 2, 2017, the Trump Administration reversed the decision to extend the deadline to issue area designations, thereby requiring EPA to issue designations for ozone attainment areas by October 1, 2017. 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 non-attainment area into compliance and will look at all sources of NO x 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 non-attainment but would not face more stringent requirements over time.” On November 6, 2017, EPA released a final rule establishing some, but not all, initial area designations. In that final rule, EPA designated 2,646 counties (representing about 85% of the counties in the U.S.) as attainment/unclassifiable, and three counties in Washington as unclassifiable. San Juan County, New Mexico, where SJGS and Four Corners are located, is designated as attainment/unclassifiable. On December 21, 2017, EPA issued a notice of availability of its intended designations for the remaining undesignated areas. EPA stated that it intended to address the remaining areas in a separate future action, but did not specify a time frame for doing so. Under the CAA, EPA was required to promulgate area designations no later than October 1, 2017. The notice announces the availability of “120-day letters,” which were sent directly to states and tribes on December 20, 2017, and contain EPA’s intended air quality designations for the remaining areas. The only county in New Mexico designated as non-attainment is Dona Ana County. By February 28, 2018, states and tribes must provide EPA any additional information they would like EPA to consider before it promulgates final designations. EPA stated it intends to finalize designations for all areas addressed in the 120-day letters no later than April 30, 2018. By October 2018, NMED is required to submit an infrastructure SIP that provides the basic air quality management program to implement the revised ozone standard. These plans are generally due within 36 months from the date of designation and are expected to be submitted to EPA by October 1, 2020. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 July 2016, OSM filed a Motion for Voluntary Remand to allow the agency to conduct a new environmental analysis. On August 31, 2016, the court entered an order remanding the matter to OSM for the completion of an EIS by August 31, 2019. The court ruled that mining operations may continue in the interim and the litigation is 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, absent a further court order based on good cause shown. On March 22, 2017, OSM issued its Notice of Intent to initiate the public scoping process and prepare an EIS for the project. The Notice of Intent provided that, in addition to analyzing the environmental effects of the mining project, the EIS will also analyze the indirect effects of coal combustion at SJGS. The public comment period ended on May 8, 2017 and the EIS resource data submittal phase was completed in November 2017. The draft EIS is expected to be available for public comment in mid-2018. 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 court 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 working with EPA regarding this issue. However, PNM does not expect material changes as a result of any requirements that may be imposed upon SJGS. The requirements related to Four Corners will be addressed in a subsequent NPDES permitting cycle that will determine APS’s costs to comply with the rule. PNM 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. On April 14, 2017, EPA filed a motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relating to ongoing litigation of the 2016 Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines rule. EPA asked the court to hold all proceedings in the case in abeyance until August 12, 2017 while EPA reconsiders the rule. EPA also asked to be allowed to file a motion on August 12, 2017 to inform the court if EPA wishes to seek a remand of any provisions of the rule so that EPA may conduct further rulemaking, if appropriate. The motion referred to the notice signed by the EPA Administrator on April 12, 2017, which announced EPA’s intent to reconsider this rule, as well as EPA’s administrative stay of the compliance deadlines. On August 22, 2017, the court granted the government’s motion and the litigation is held in abeyance until EPA’s further rulemaking has concluded. On April 25, 2017, EPA published in the Federal Register a notice of postponement of certain compliance dates for the 2016 Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines rule, consistent with the EPA's decision to grant reconsideration of the rule. Specifically, the deadlines that will be postponed are the "best available technology" limitations and pretreatment standards for certain waste streams. On September 18, 2017, EPA published the final rule for postponement of certain compliance dates that have not yet passed for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines rule, consistent with the EPA's decision to grant reconsideration of that rule. The final rule postponed the earliest date on which compliance with the effluent limitation guidelines for these waste streams would be required from November 1, 2018 until November 1, 2020. Because SJGS is zero discharge for wastewater and is not required 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 minimal to no requirements will be imposed at Reeves 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 revised effluent limitations during the revised compliance timeframe (from November 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023). 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. 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. PNM has completed all CAF-related work associated with the monitoring plan and has received NMED’s approval. Under the next phase, PNM’s contractor prepared a scope of work, which PNM and NMED have approved, for the installation of additional monitoring wells and additional sampling of certain existing monitoring wells at the site. Work is expected to commence in March 2018. Qualified costs of this work will be eligible for payment through the CAF. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of these matters. Coal Combustion Byproducts Waste Disposal CCBs consisting of fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum generated from coal combustion at 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 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 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 the rule 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. The CCB rule requires ongoing, phased groundwater monitoring. By October 17, 2017, utilities that own or operate CCB disposal units, such as those at Four Corners must have collected sufficient groundwater sampling data to initiate a detection monitoring program. To the extent that certain threshold constituents are identified through this initial detection monitoring at levels above the CCB rule’s standards, the rule requires the initiation of an assessment monitoring program by April 15, 2018. If this assessment monitoring program reveals concentrations of certain constituents above the CCB rule standards that trigger remedial obligations, a corrective measures evaluation must be completed by January 2019. Depending upon the results of such groundwater monitoring and data evaluations, Four Corners may be required to take corrective actions, the costs of which 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, EPA is required to complete a rulemaking proceeding by June 2019 to address specific technical issues related to the handling of CCBs. 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, corrective action may be required. 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 time line for establishing either state or federal permitting programs. APS recently filed a comment letter with EPA seeking clarification as to when and how EPA would be initiating permit proceedings for facilities on tribal reservations, including Four Corners. PNM is unable to predict when EPA will be issuing permits for Four Corners. On September 13, 2017, EPA agreed to evaluate whether to revise the CCB regulations based upon utility industry petitions for EPA to reconsider the RCRA Subtitle D regulations for CCBs, which were premised in part on the provisions of the WIIN Act. In light of the WIIN Act and the petitions for rulemaking, the EPA is considering making additional changes to the CCB rule to provide flexibility to state programs consistent with the WIIN Act. With respect to ongoing litigation initiated by industry and environmental groups challenging the legality of the CCB regulations and pursuant to an order issued by the DC Circuit, EPA filed a status report on November 15, 2017 on the challenges to the CCB rule identifying provisions it intends to reconsider. On November 20, 2017, the DC Circuit heard oral arguments from industry groups, environmentalists, and EPA. EPA and the industry groups argued the court should postpone adjudication until EPA completes the reconsideration process for the affected provision. On December 20, 2017, a proposal to remand the CCB rule was transmitted to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review. The CCB rule does not cover mine placement of coal ash. OSM is expected to publish a proposed rule covering mine placement in the future 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. Other Commitments and Contingencies Coal Supply SJGS The coal requirements for SJGS are supplied by SJCC. SJCC holds certain federal, state, and private coal leases. 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. 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, 2017 and 2016, prepayments for coal (including amounts purchased from the existing SJGS participants discussed below), which are included in other current assets, amounted to $26.3 million and $48.7 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 SJGS 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 (“SJGS CSA”), pursuant to which Westmoreland is to supply all of the coal requirements of SJGS through June 30, 2022. PNM and Westmoreland also entered into agreements under which Westmoreland is to provide CCB disposal and mine reclamation services for SJGS. 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 SJGS CSA. The SJGS 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 SJGS CSA and the agreements for CCB disposal and mine reclamation services were assigned to SJCC. Westmoreland has guaranteed SJCC’s performance under the SJGS CSA. Pricing under the SJGS 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 SJGS 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. However, as discussed in Note 17, PNM’s 2017 IRP shows that retirement of PNM’s SJGS capacity in 2022 would be cost-effective for customers. If retirement of SJGS is approved by the NMPRC, there will be no need to extend the SJGS CSA. The SJGS RA sets forth terms under which PNM acquired the coal inventory, including coal mined but not delivered, of the exiting SJGS participants as of January 1, 2016 and supplied coal to the SJGS exiting participants for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017 and is supplying coal to the SJGS remaining participants over the term of the SJGS CSA. Coal costs under the SJGS 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 WSJ’s purchase 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, matures on 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 $50.1 million at December 31, 2017 and $45.1 million at February 20, 2018. 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 matures on February 1, 2021. The interest rate on the Westmoreland Loan escalates over time and was initially a rate of 7.25% plus LIBOR. Such rate was 9.25% plus LIBOR for the period from February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018 and is 12.25% plus LIBOR for the period from February 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019. 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, 2017, the amount outstanding under the Westmoreland Loan was $56.6 million. Reflecting the principal payment of $5.6 million that was paid when due on February 1, 2018, the balance of the Westmoreland Loan was $51.0 million as of February 20, 2018. 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 is required to post reclamation bonds of $118.7 million with the NMMMD. In order to facilitate the posting of reclamation bonds by sureties on behalf of SJCC, PNMR entered into letter of credit arrangements with a bank under which letters of credit aggregating $30.3 million have been issued. 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 (the “Four Corners CSA”), 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 ton under the new contract was approximately 51% higher in the twelve months ended June 30, 2017 than in the twelve months ended June 30, 2016, excluding the disputed amounts discussed below. 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. Four Corners Coal Supply Arbitration – The owners of Four Corners are obligated to purchase a specified minimum amount of coal each contract year and to pay for any shortfall of coal that they fail to take delivery of below the minimum amount, except when caused by “uncontrollable forces” as defined in the Four Corners CSA. On June 13, 2017, APS received a demand for arbitration from NTEC in connection with the Four Corners CSA. NTEC originally sought a declaratory judgment to support its interpretation of a provision regarding uncontrollable forces in the agreement relating to the annual minimum quantities of coal to be purchased by the Four Corners owners. NTEC also alleged a shortfall in those purchases for the initial contract year, which ended June 30, 2017, of which PNM’s share is estimated to be approximately $6.5 million. On September 20, 2017, NTEC amended its demand for arbitration removing the request for a declaratory judgment and is now only seeking relief for the alleged shortfall in purchases in the initial contract year. PNM anticipates that substantially all of any amount it ultimately is required to pay would be passed through to customers under PNM’s FPPAC. Although PNM cannot predict the timing or outcome of the arbitration, the outcome is not expected to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. 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 reflected that, with the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 described above, the mine providing coal to SJGS would continue to operate through 2053, the anticipated life of SJGS. The 2013 coal mine reclamation study indicated reclamation costs had 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 reflected 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. Upon effectiveness of the SJGS CSA and the SJGS 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. This reclamation cost estimate reflected the terms of the new reclamation services agreement with Westmoreland and continuation of mining operations through 2053. The study indicated an increase in the reclamation cost estimate. PNM’s $4.5 million share of the increase 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 $100.4 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $127.1 million for the underground mine at SJGS as of December 31, 2017. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, liabilities, in current dollars, of $41.4 million and $41.0 million for surface mine reclamation and $14.7 million and $14.0 million for underground mine reclamation were recorded in other deferred credits. As discussed in Note 17, PNM filed its 2017 IRP on July 3, 2017. The conclusions contained in the 2017 IRP indicate that it would be cost beneficial to PNM’s customers for PNM to retire its SJGS capacity in 2022 and for PNM to exit its ownership interest in Four Corners in 2031. The 2017 IRP is not a final determination of PNM’s future generation portfolio. Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS capacity and exiting Four Corners would require NMPRC approval of abandonment filings, which PNM would make at appropriate times in the future. If the NMPRC orders the abandonment of those facilities, PNM would be required to remeasure its liability for coal mine reclamation to reflect that reclamation activities would occur sooner than currently anticipated. The remeasurement would likely result in a significant increase in PNM’s liability for SJGS mine reclamation due to a further increase in the amount of fill dirt required to remediate the mine areas thereby increasing the overall reclamation costs. PNM would record an additional amount when it is determined that the increase to the liability is probable and can be reasonably estimated, which would be dependent on receiving the NMPRC approvals indicated above. The amount of the increase in the liability would depend on the timing of those approvals and other regulatory actions, as well estimates made at that time of the costs to perform the future reclamation activities, as well as the then current inflation and discount rates. Preliminary calculations indicate the increase in PNM’s liability for December 31, 2017 SJGS mine reclamation would be approximately $35 million for the surface mine and $5 million for the underground mine. PNM would record a regulatory asset for amounts recoverable from ratepayers under existing or future orders of the NMPRC and amounts not recoverable would be expensed. PNM cannot predict what actions the NMPRC might take. Under the terms of the SJGS 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. The SJGS owners entered into a reclamation trust funds agreement to provide funding to compensate SJCC for post-term reclamation obligations under the UGCSA. 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 SJGS 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 $5.8 million in 2017, $7.0 million in 2016, and $4.3 million in 2015. Based on PNM’s reclamation trust fund balance at December 31, 2017, the current funding curves indicate PNM’s required contributions to its reclamation trust fund would be $8.3 million in 2018, $8.7 million in 2019, and $9.2 million in 2020. Under the Four Corners CSA, 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. PNM contributed $2.3 million in 2017 and $1.9 million in 2016 to the escrow account and anticipates providing additional funding of $2.3 million, $2.3 million, and $2.3 million in 2018, 2019, and 2020. 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. 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”). The primary policy offered by NEIL contains a sublimit of $2.25 billion for non-nuclear property damage. If NEIL’s losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, PNM is subject to retrospective premium adjustments 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. The issues have been fully briefed and the matter is pending with the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Adjudication of non-Indian water rights continues during the pendency of the appeal of the Navajo Nation settlement. 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 and adjudicated to the Navajo Nation, which comprise a significant portion of water available from sources on the San Juan River and in the San Juan Basin and which have priority in times of shortages. 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, which was denied. On March 28, 2017, the utilities filed a Writ of Certiorari with the NM Supreme Court, which was denied. The matter will proceed in New Mexico District Court. The utilities and Bernalillo County reached a standstill agreement whereby the County would not take any enforcement action against the utilities pursuant to the ordinance during the pendency of the litigation, but not including any period for appeal of a judgment, or upon 30 days written notice by either the County or the utilities of their intention to terminate the agreement. If the challenges to the ordinance are unsuccessful, PNM believes any fees paid pursuant to the ordinance would be considered franchise fees and would be recoverable from customers. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or its impact on PNM’s operations. Complaint Against Southwestern Public Service Company In September 2005, PNM filed a complaint under the Federal Power Act against SPS alleging SPS overcharged PNM for deliveries of energy through its fuel cost adjustment clause practices and that rates for sales to PNM were excessive. PNM also intervened in a similar proceeding brought by other SPS customers and a proceeding filed by SPS to revise its rates for sales to PNM. On October 29, 2015, FERC approved a settlement agreement resolving all outstanding issues between SPS and PNM. Under the settlement, SPS paid PNM $4.2 million. 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 NM District Court regarding the approximately 15.49 acres of land at issue. On December 1, 2015, the court ruled that PNM could not condemn two of the five allotments at issue based on the Navajo Nation’s fractional interest in the land. PNM filed a motion for reconsideration of this ruling which 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. 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. On May 26, 2017, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. On July 8, 2017, PNM filed a Motion for Reconsideration en banc with the Tenth Circuit. On July 21, 2017, the court denied PNM’s Motion for Reconsideration. On July 26, 2017, PNM filed a motion to stay implementation of the court’s decision, which was denied. On September 11, 2017, PNM filed an Application for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the US Supreme Court. PNM’s application for an extension of time to November 20, 2017 was granted. The NM District Court has stayed the case until May 15, 2018 based on the Navajo Nation’s acquisition of interests in two additional allotments and the unresolved ownership of the fifth allotment due to the owner’s death. On November 20, 2017, PNM filed its Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the US Supreme Court. On December 22, 2017, amicus briefs supporting PNM’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari were filed with the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court extended the United States’ response period to March 23, 2018. PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters. Sales Tax Audits In November 2011, PNMR completed the sale of its retail electric provider, which operated in Texas under the name First Choice Power (“First Choice”). Under the sale agreement, PNMR is contractually obligated for First Choice’s taxes relating to periods prior to the sale. The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (“Comptroller”) has initiated audits of First Choice’s sales and use tax filings and miscellaneous gross receipts tax filings for periods prior to the sale. During the course of the audits, PNMR accrued an immaterial liability for items identified in the audits for which PNMR believed an unfavorable resolution was probable. The Comptroller has issued notifications of audit results indicating additional tax due of $5.0 million, plus penalties and interest. The primary issue in dispute is the disallowance by the auditor of the tax benefits of bad debt charge-offs and billing credits. On behalf of First Choice, PNMR filed requests for redetermination for both audits. PNMR has engaged in continued discussions with the Comptroller, as well as supplying additional documentation in support of PNMR’s positions. If PNMR and the Comptroller do not reach agreement, this matter will go to hearing with the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings. Although PNMR believes its positions are correct, it is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

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 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration