Regulatory and Rate Matters

The Company is involved in various regulatory matters, some of which contain contingencies that are subject to the same uncertainties as those described in Note 16.

PNM

New Mexico General Rate Cases

New Mexico 2015 General Rate Case (“NM 2015 Rate Case”)

On August 27, 2015, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for a general increase in retail electric rates. The application proposed a revenue increase of $123.5 million, including base non-fuel revenues of $121.7 million. PNM’s application was based on a future test year (“FTY”) period beginning October 1, 2015, which met the NMPRC’s interpretation of the FTY statute, and proposed a ROE of 10.5%. PNM requested that the proposed new rates become effective beginning in July 2016. On March 2, 2016, the NMPRC required PNM to file supplemental testimony regarding the treatment of renewable energy in PNM’s FPPAC. See Renewable Portfolio Standard below. A public hearing on the proposed new rates was held in April 2016. Subsequent to this hearing, the NMPRC ordered PNM to file additional testimony regarding PNM’s interests in PVNGS, including the 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2 that PNM repurchased in January 2016, pursuant to the terms of the initial sales-leaseback transactions (Note 8). A subsequent public hearing was held in June 2016. After the June hearing, PNM and other parties were ordered to file supplemental briefs and to provide final recommended revenue requirements that incorporated fuel savings that PNM implemented effective January 1, 2016 from PNM’s SJGS CSA (Note 16). PNM’s filing indicated that recovery for fuel related costs would be reduced by approximately $42.9 million reflecting the current SJGS CSA, which also reduced the request for base non-fuel related revenues by $0.2 million to $121.5 million.

On August 4, 2016, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued a recommended decision (the “August 2016 RD”). The August 2016 RD proposed an increase in non-fuel revenues of $41.3 million compared to the $121.5 million increase requested by PNM. Major components of the difference in the increase in non-fuel revenues proposed in the August 2016 RD, included:


•	A ROE of 9.575% compared to the 10.5% requested by PNM

•

Disallowing recovery of the entire $163.3 million purchase price for the January 15, 2016 purchases of the assets underlying three leases of portions of PVNGS Unit 2 (Note 8); the August 2016 RD proposed that power from the previously leased assets, aggregating 64.1 MW of capacity, be dedicated to serving New Mexico retail customers with those customers being charged for the costs of fuel and operating and maintenance expenses (other than property taxes, which were $0.8 million per year when the August 2016 RD was issued), but the customers would not bear any capital or depreciation costs other than those related to improvements made after the date of the original leases

•

Disallowing recovery from retail customers of the rent expense, which aggregates $18.1 million per year, under the four leases of capacity in PVNGS Unit 1 that were extended for eight years beginning January 15, 2015 and the one lease of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 that was extended for eight years beginning January 15, 2016 (Note 8) and related property taxes, which were $1.5 million per year when the August 2016 RD was issued; the August 2016 RD proposed that power from the leased assets, aggregating 114.6 MW of capacity, be dedicated to serving New Mexico retail customers with those customers being charged for the costs of fuel and operating and maintenance expense, except that customers would not bear rental costs or property taxes


•	Disallowing recovery of the costs of converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT, which is required by the NSR permit for SJGS, (Note 16); PNM’s share of the costs of installing the BDT equipment was $52.3 million of which $40.0 million was included in rate base in PNM’s rate request


•	Disallowing recovery of $4.5 million of amounts recorded as regulatory assets and deferred charges

The August 2016 RD recommended that the NMPRC find PNM was imprudent in the actions taken to purchase the previously leased 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, extending the leases for 114.6 MW of capacity of PVNGS Units 1 and 2, and installing the BDT equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4. The August 2016 RD also proposed that all fuel costs be removed from base rates and be recovered through the FPPAC. In addition, the August 2016 RD would remove recovery of the costs of power obtained from New Mexico Wind from the FPPAC and include recovery of those costs through PNM’s renewable energy rider discussed below. The August 2016 RD recommended continuation of the renewable energy rider and certain aspects of PNM’s proposals regarding rate design but would not approve certain other rate design proposals or PNM’s request for a revenue decoupling pilot program. The August 2016 RD proposed approving PNM’s proposals for revised depreciation rates (except the August 2016 RD would require depreciation on Four Corners be calculated based on a 2041 life rather than the 2031 life proposed by PNM), the inclusion of construction work in progress in rate base, and ratemaking treatment of the “prepaid pension asset.” The August 2016 RD proposed retail customers receive 100% of the New Mexico jurisdictional portion of revenues from “refined coal” (a third-party pre-treatment process) at SJGS. The August 2016 RD also approved PNM’s request to record a regulatory asset to recover a 2014 impairment of PNM’s New Mexico net operating loss carryforward resulting from an extension of the income tax provision for fifty percent bonus depreciation. The impact, net of federal income taxes, amounting to $2.1 million was reflected as a reduction of income tax expense on the Consolidated Statement of Earnings.

The August 2016 RD did not preclude PNM from supporting the prudence of the PVNGS purchases and lease renewals in its next general rate case and seeking recovery of those costs. PNM disagreed with many of the key conclusions reached by the Hearing Examiner in the August 2016 RD and filed exceptions to defend its prudent utility investments. Other parties also filed exceptions to the August 2016 RD.

On September 28, 2016, the NMPRC issued an order that authorized PNM to implement an increase in non-fuel rates of $61.2 million, effective for bills sent to customers after September 30, 2016. The order generally approved the August 2016 RD, but with certain significant modifications. The modifications to the August 2016 RD included:


•	Inclusion of the January 2016 purchase of the assets underlying three leases of capacity, aggregating 64.1 MW, of PVNGS Unit 2 at an initial rate base value of $83.7 million; and disallowance of the recovery of the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW was being leased by PNM, which aggregated $43.8 million when the order was issued


•	Allowing full recovery of the rent expense and property taxes associated with the extended leases for capacity, aggregating 114.6 MW, in Palo Verde Units 1 and 2


•	Disallowance of the recovery of any future contributions for PVNGS decommissioning costs related to the 64.1 MW of capacity purchased in January 2016 and the 114.6 MW of capacity under the extended leases


•	Recovery of assumed operating and maintenance expense savings of $0.3 million annually related to BDT

On September 30, 2016, PNM filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court regarding the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case. Subsequently, NEE, NMIEC, and ABCWUA filed notices of cross-appeal to PNM’s appeal. On October 26, 2016, PNM filed a statement of issues related to its appeal with the NM Supreme Court, which stated PNM is appealing the NMPRC’s determination that PNM was imprudent in the actions taken to purchase the previously leased 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, extending the leases for 114.6 MW of capacity of PVNGS Units 1 and 2, and installing BDT equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4. In addition, PNM’s statement indicated it is appealing the following specific elements of the NMPRC’s order:


•	Disallowance of recovery of the full purchase price, representing fair market value, of the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 purchased in January 2016


•	Disallowance of the recovery of the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW of capacity was leased by PNM


•	Disallowance of recovery of future contributions for PVNGS decommissioning attributable to the 64.1 MW of purchased capacity and the 114.6 MW of capacity under the extended leases


•	Disallowance of recovery of the costs of converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT

The issues that are being appealed by the various cross-appellants include:


•	The NMPRC allowing PNM to recover the costs of the lease extensions for the 114.6 MW of PVNGS Units 1 and 2 and any of the purchase price for the 64.1 MW in PVNGS Unit 2


•	The NMPRC allowing PNM to recover the costs incurred under the new Four Corners CSA


•	The revised method to collect PNM’s fuel and purchased power costs under the FPPAC


•	The final rate design


•	The NMPRC allowing PNM to include the “prepaid pension asset” in rate base

NEE subsequently filed a motion for a partial stay of the order at the NM Supreme Court. This motion was denied. The NM Supreme Court orally stated that the court’s intent was to request that PNM reimburse ratepayers for any amount overcharged should the cross-appellants prevail on the merits.

On February 17, 2017, PNM filed its Brief in Chief, and pursuant to the court’s rules, the briefing schedule was completed on July 21, 2017. Oral argument at the NM Supreme Court was held on October 30, 2017. Although appeals of regulatory actions of the NMPRC have a priority at the NM Supreme Court under New Mexico law, there is no required time frame for the court to act on the appeals.

GAAP requires a loss be recognized when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. When there is a range of the amount of the probable loss, the minimum amount of the range is to be accrued unless an amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. As of September 30, 2016, PNM evaluated the accounting consequences of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case and the likelihood of being successful on the issues it is appealing in the NM Supreme Court as required under GAAP. The evaluation indicated it is reasonably possible that PNM will be successful on the issues it is appealing. If the NM Supreme Court rules in PNM’s favor on some or all of the issues, those issues would be remanded back to the NMPRC for further action. As of September 30, 2016, PNM estimated it would take a minimum of 15 months from the date PNM filed its appeal for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues. PNM concluded that a range of probable loss resulted from the NMPRC order in the NM 2015 Rate Case; that the minimum amount of loss was 15 months of capital cost recovery that the order disallowed for PNM’s investments in the PVNGS Unit 2 purchases, PVNGS Unit 2 capitalized improvements, and BDT; and that no amount within the range of possible loss was a better estimate than any other amount. Accordingly, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $6.8 million at September 30, 2016 for the capital costs that would not be recovered during that 15-month appeal period. In addition, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance for $4.5 million of costs recorded as regulatory assets and deferred charges (which the order disallowed and which PNM did not challenge in its appeal) since PNM could no longer assert that those assets were probable of being recovered through the ratemaking process.

PNM also evaluated the accounting consequences of the issues that are being appealed by the cross-appellants. PNM does not believe the issues raised in the cross-appeals have substantial merit. Accordingly, PNM does not believe that the likelihood of the cross-appeals being successful is probable and, therefore, no loss has been recorded related to the issues subject to the cross-appeals.

Since the NM Supreme Court did not issue a decision on the appeals related to the NM 2015 Rate Case by December 31, 2017, which was 15 months from the date of the NMPRC’s order in that case, PNM reevaluated the accounting consequences of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case. As of December 31, 2017, PNM estimated the most likely period for the NM Supreme Court to issue a decision in the case and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues was seven months. As a result, PNM recorded an additional pre-tax loss of $3.1 million as of December 31, 2017, representing seven months of capital cost recovery that the order disallowed and would not be recovered through July 31, 2018.

During 2018, PNM updated its evaluation of the estimated time frame it would take for resolution of the matter resulting in additional pre-tax losses of $4.0 million, which are reflected as regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings, based on an estimate of an additional nine months of capital cost recovery that the order disallowed and would not be collected from customers through April 30, 2019. Further losses will be recorded if the currently estimated time frame for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues is extended.

PNM continues to believe that the disallowed investments, which are the subject of PNM’s appeal, were prudent and that PNM is entitled to full recovery of those investments through the ratemaking process. Although PNM believes it is reasonably possible that its appeals will be successful, it cannot predict what decision the NM Supreme Court will reach or what further actions the NMPRC will take on any issues remanded to it by the court. If PNM’s appeal is unsuccessful, PNM would record further pre-tax losses related to the capitalized costs for any unsuccessful issues. The impacts of not recovering future contributions for decommissioning would be recognized in future periods reflecting that rates charged to customers would not recover those costs as they are incurred. The amounts of any such losses to be recorded would depend on the ultimate outcome of the appeal and NMPRC process, as well as the actual amounts reflected on PNM books at the time of the resolution. However, based on the book values recorded by PNM as of December 31, 2018, such losses could include:


•	The remaining costs to acquire the assets previously leased under three leases aggregating 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2 capacity in excess of the recovery permitted under the NMPRC’s order; the net book value of such excess amount was $73.3 million, after considering the losses recorded to date


•	The undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 purchased by PNM in January 2016 was being leased by PNM; the net book value of these improvements was $38.0 million, after considering the losses recorded to date


•	The remaining costs to convert SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT; the net book value of these assets was $50.0 million, after considering the losses recorded to date

Although PNM does not believe that the likelihood of the cross-appeals being successful is probable, it is unable to predict what decision the NM Supreme Court will reach. If the NM Supreme Court were to overturn all of the issues subject to the cross-appeals and, upon remand, the NMPRC did not provide any cost recovery of those items, PNM would write-off all of the costs to acquire the assets previously leased under three leases, aggregating 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2 capacity, totaling $146.1 million (which amount includes $73.3 million that is the subject of PNM’s appeal discussed above) at December 31, 2018, after considering the losses recorded to date. The impacts of not recovering costs for the lease extensions, new coal supply contract for Four Corners, and “prepaid pension asset” in rate base would be recognized in future periods reflecting that rates charged to customers would not recover those costs as they are incurred. The outcomes of the cross-appeals regarding the FPPAC and rate design should not have a financial impact to PNM.

PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

New Mexico 2016 General Rate Case (“NM 2016 Rate Case”)

On December 7, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for a general increase in retail electric rates. PNM did not include any of the costs disallowed in the NM 2015 Rate Case that are at issue in its pending appeal to the NM Supreme Court. Key aspects of PNM’s request were:


•	An increase in base non-fuel revenues of $99.2 million


•	Based on a FTY beginning January 1, 2018 (the NMPRC’s rules specify that a FTY is a 12 month period beginning up to 13 months after the filing of a rate case application)


•	ROE of 10.125%


•	Drivers of revenue deficiency


◦	Implementation of the modifications in PNM’s resource portfolio, which were previously approved by the NMPRC as part of the SJGS regional haze compliance plan (Note 16)


◦	Infrastructure investments, including environmental upgrades at Four Corners


◦	Declines in forecasted energy sales due to successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors


◦	Updates in the FERC/retail jurisdictional allocations


•	Proposed changes to rate design to establish fair and equitable pricing across rate classes and to better align cost recovery with cost causation


◦	Increased customer and demand charges


◦	A “lost contribution to fixed cost” mechanism applicable to residential and small commercial customers to address the regulatory disincentive associated with PNM’s energy efficiency programs

The NMPRC scheduled a public hearing to begin on June 5, 2017, ordered that a settlement conference be held, and that any resulting stipulation should be filed by March 27, 2017. Settlement discussions were held, but no agreements were reached by March 27, 2017, after which the date for filing a stipulation was extended. In early May 2017, PNM and thirteen intervenors (the “Signatories”) entered into a comprehensive stipulation. On May 12, 2017, the Hearing Examiners issued an order rejecting the stipulation in its then current form but allowed the Signatories to revise the stipulation. On May 23, 2017, the Signatories filed a revised stipulation that addressed the issues raised by the Hearing Examiners. NEE was the sole party opposing the revised stipulation. The terms of the revised stipulation, which required NMPRC approval in order to take effect, included:


•	A revenue increase totaling $62.3 million, with an initial increase of $32.3 million beginning January 1, 2018 and the remaining increase beginning January 1, 2019


•	A ROE of 9.575%


•	Full recovery of PNM’s investment in SCRs at Four Corners with a debt-only return


•	An agreement to not implement non-fuel base rate changes, other than changes related to PNM’s rate riders, with an effective date prior to January 1, 2020


•	An agreement to adjust the January 2019 increase for certain changes in federal corporate tax laws enacted prior to November 1, 2018 and effective and applicable to PNM by January 1, 2019 and to true-up PNM’s cost of debt for refinancing transactions through 2018


•	Returning to customers over a three-year period the benefit of the reduction in the New Mexico corporate income tax rate (Note 18) to the extent attributable to PNM’s retail operations


•	PNM would withdraw its proposal for a “lost contribution to fixed cost” mechanism with the issue to be addressed in a future docket


•	PNM would perform a cost benefit analysis in its 2020 IRP of the impact of a possible early exit from Four Corners in 2024 and 2028

A hearing on the revised stipulation was held in August 2017. On October 31, 2017, the Hearing Examiners issued a Certification of Stipulation recommending a Modified Revised Stipulation. The significant changes to the revised stipulation in the Hearing Examiners’ Modified Revised Stipulation included:


•	Identifying PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners as imprudent


•	Disallowing PNM’s ability to collect a debt or equity return on its $90.1 million investment in SCRs at Four Corners and on $58.0 million of projected capital improvements during the period July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018


•	Recommending a temporary disallowance of $36.8 million of PNM’s projected capital improvements at SJGS through December 31, 2018

On December 20, 2017, the NMPRC issued an Order Partially Adopting Certification of Stipulation, which approved the Hearing Examiners’ Certification of Stipulation with certain changes. Substantive changes from the Certification of Stipulation included requiring the impacts of changes related to the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate be implemented effective January 1, 2018 rather than January 1, 2019 and deferring further consideration regarding the prudency of PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners to a future proceeding.

On December 28, 2017, PNM filed a Motion for Rehearing and Request for Oral Argument asking the NMPRC to vacate their December 20, 2017 order and allow the parties to present oral argument. Additionally, several Signatories to the revised stipulation filed a Joint Motion for Partial Rehearing asking that the NMPRC approve the revised stipulation without modification. On January 2, 2018, NEE filed a response urging the NMPRC to reject PNM’s Motion.

On January 3, 2018, the NMPRC vacated its December 20, 2017 order and granted the motions for rehearing. The rehearing was held on January 10, 2018.

The NMPRC issued a Revised Order Partially Adopting Certification of Stipulation dated January 10, 2018 (the “Revised Order”). The Revised Order approved the Hearing Examiners’ Certification of Stipulation with certain changes including:


•	Requiring the impacts of changes related to the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate and PNM’s cost of debt (aggregating an estimated $47.6 million annually) be implemented in 2018 rather than January 1, 2019


•	Deferring further consideration regarding the prudency of PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners to PNM’s next rate case


•	Disallowing PNM’s ability to collect an equity return on its $90.1 million investment in SCRs at Four Corners and on $58.0 million of projected capital improvements during the period July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018, but allowed recovery of the total $148.1 million of investments with a debt-only return


•	Requiring PNM to reduce the requested $62.3 million increase in non-fuel revenue by $9.1 million


•	Implementation of the first phase of the rate increase for services rendered, rather than bills sent, beginning February 1, 2018 and of the second phase for services rendered beginning January 1, 2019

On January 16, 2018, PNM requested clarifying changes to the Revised Order to adjust the $9.1 million reduction to $4.4 million, asserting that $4.7 million of the reduction was duplicative. On January 17, 2018, the NMPRC issued an order approving the adjustment requested by PNM. On January 19, 2018, PNM and the Signatories filed a joint notice of acceptance of the Revised Order, as amended. On January 31, 2018, the NMPRC issued an order closing the docket in the NM 2016 Rate Case. After implementation of changes to the federal corporate income tax rate and cost of debt, the final order results in a net increase to PNM’s non-fuel revenue requirement of $10.3 million. PNM implemented 50% of the approved increase for service rendered beginning February 1, 2018 and implemented the rest of the increase for service rendered beginning January 1, 2019.

GAAP required PNM to recognize a loss to reflect that PNM will not earn an equity return on $148.1 million of investments at Four Corners. As of December 31, 2017, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $27.9 million. The amount of the loss was calculated by determining the present value of disallowed cash flows, which equals the difference between the cash flows resulting from recovery of those investments at PNM’s embedded cost of debt and the cash flows with a full return on investment (including an equity component), and discounting the differences at PNM’s WACC.

On February 7, 2018, NEE filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court asking the court to review the NMPRC’s decisions in the NM 2016 Rate Case. On March 7, 2018, NEE filed its statement of issues with the NM Supreme Court requesting, among other things, that the NMPRC be required to identify PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners as imprudent and to deny any recovery related to PNM’s $148.1 million investments in that facility. NEE’s Brief in Chief was filed on July 16, 2018 and PNM’s Answer Brief was filed on October 12, 2018. Several parties to the case intervened in the appeal as intervenor-appellees in support of the NMPRC’s final decisions in the Revised Order. On November 15, 2018, NEE filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its appeal, which was granted by the NM Supreme Court. On December 3, 2018, the NM Supreme Court issued its order of dismissal and remanded the matter to the NMPRC.

Investigation/Rulemaking Concerning NMPRC Ratemaking Policies

On March 22, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order opening an investigation and rulemaking to simplify and increase “the transparency of NMPRC rate cases by reducing the number of issues litigated in rate cases,” and provide a “more level playing field among intervenors and NMPRC staff on the one hand, and the utilities on the other.” The order posed the following questions: whether a standardized method should be established for determining ROE; should the ROE be subject to reward or penalty based on utilities meeting or failing to meet certain metrics, which could include customer complaints, outages, peak demand reductions, and RPS and energy efficiency compliance; whether recovery of utility rate case expenses should be limited to 50% unless the case is settled; whether intervenors should be allowed to recover their expenses if the NMPRC accepts their position; whether parties should have access to software used by utilities to support their positions; and how regulatory assets should be authorized and recovered. Initial comments were filed in July 2017 and several public workshops have been held. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding.

Renewable Portfolio Standard

The REA establishes a mandatory RPS requiring a utility to acquire a renewable energy portfolio equal to 10% of retail electric sales by 2011, 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. PNM files annual renewable energy procurement plans for approval by the NMPRC. The NMPRC requires renewable energy portfolios to be “fully diversified.” The current diversity requirements, which are subject to the limitation of the RCT, are minimums of 30% wind, 20% solar, 3% distributed generation, and 5% other.

The REA provides for streamlined proceedings for approval of utilities’ renewable energy procurement plans, assures that utilities recover costs incurred consistent with approved procurement plans, and requires the NMPRC to establish a RCT for the procurement of renewable resources to prevent excessive costs being added to rates. Currently, the RCT is set at 3% of customers’ annual electric charges. PNM makes renewable procurements consistent with the NMPRC approved plans. PNM recovers certain renewable procurement costs from customers through a rate rider. See Renewable Energy Rider below.

Included in PNM’s approved procurement plans are the following renewable energy resources:


•	157 MW of PNM-owned solar-PV facilities, including 50 MW of PNM-owned solar-PV facilities approved by the NMPRC in PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan which are currently under construction


•	A PPA through 2044 for the output of New Mexico Wind, having a current aggregate capacity of 204 MW, and a PPA through 2035 for the output of Red Mesa Wind, having an aggregate capacity of 102 MW


•	A PPA through 2042 for the output of the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility; the geothermal facility began providing power to PNM in January 2014; the current capacity of the facility is 15 MW


•	Solar distributed generation, aggregating 100.6 MW at December 31, 2018, owned by customers or third parties from whom PNM purchases any net excess output and RECs


•	Solar and wind RECs as needed to meet the RPS requirements

PNM filed its 2016 renewable energy procurement plan on June 1, 2015. The plan met RPS and diversity requirements within the RCT in 2016 and 2017 using existing resources and did not propose any significant new procurements. The NMPRC approved the plan in November 2015, and, after granting a rehearing motion to consider issues regarding the rate treatment of certain customers eligible for a cap on, or an exemption from, RPS procurement, the NMPRC again approved the plan in an order issued on February 3, 2016. The NMPRC deferred issues related to capped and exempt customers to PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and to a new case, which the NMPRC subsequently initiated through issuance of an order to show cause. The NM 2015 Rate Case and show cause proceeding were to examine whether PNM miscalculated the FPPAC factor and base fuel costs in its treatment of renewable energy costs and application of the renewable procurement cost caps and exemptions. The show cause proceeding was stayed pending the outcome of the NM 2015 Rate Case. The September 28, 2016 order in the NM 2015 Rate Case directed that the cost of New Mexico Wind be recovered through PNM’s renewable rider, rather than the FPPAC, and ordered certain other modifications regarding the accounting for renewable energy in PNM’s FPPAC. These modifications do not affect the amount of fuel and purchased power or renewable costs that PNM collects. No action has been taken in the show cause proceeding and PNM cannot predict its outcome.

PNM filed its 2017 renewable energy procurement plan on June 1, 2016. The plan met RPS and diversity requirements for 2017 and 2018 using existing resources and PNM did not propose any significant new procurements. PNM projected that its plan would slightly exceed the RCT in 2017 and would be within the RCT in 2018. PNM requested a variance from the RCT in 2017 to the extent the NMPRC determined a variance was necessary. A public hearing was held on September 26, 2016. On October 21, 2016, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision recommending that the plan be approved as filed and also found that a variance from the RCT was not required. The NMPRC approved the recommended decision on November 23, 2016.

On June 1, 2017, PNM filed its 2018 renewable energy procurement plan. PNM requested approval to procure an additional 80 GWh in 2019 and 105 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of New Mexico Wind; approval to procure an additional 55 GWh in 2019 and 77 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal; approval to procure 50 MW of new solar facilities to be constructed beginning in 2018, and continuation of customer REC purchase programs and other purchases of RECs to ensure annual compliance with the RPS. PNM’s proposed procurement costs for 2018 and 2019 will be within the RCT. The plan also sought a variance from the “other” diversity category in 2018 due to a revised production forecast of the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility in 2018. A public hearing on the application was held in September 2017. On October 17, 2017, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision that PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan be approved by the NMPRC, except for the re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal and PNM’s request to procure 50 MW of new solar facilities. The Hearing Examiner recommended that the PPA for the output of energy from Lightning Dock Geothermal be terminated effective January 1, 2018. The Hearing Examiner also recommended that PNM be required to issue another all-renewables RFP allowing developers to utilize PNM-owned sites to construct facilities, the output from which facilities would be sold to PNM through PPAs. PNM filed exceptions contesting the Hearing Examiner’s proposals. On November 15, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order approving PNM’s plan and rejecting the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations. On November 29, 2017, NMIEC filed an appeal with the NM Supreme Court objecting to the fuel allocation methodology. On December 14, 2017, NEE filed a motion to intervene and cross-appeal objecting to the approval of the 50 MW of new solar facilities. On December 18, 2017, PNM filed a motion to intervene, which was granted. NMIEC filed a motion for a partial stay of the NMPRC order, which was denied. Briefing on NMIEC’s appeal of the fuel allocation methodology is complete. On June 20, 2018, NEE filed its Brief in Chief with the NM Supreme Court stating, among other things, that PNM’s process favored ownership of the 50 MW solar facilities compared to PPAs. PNM and the NMPRC each filed Answer Briefs on September 4, 2018 stating there is substantial evidence in the case record to support the NMPRC’s decision and that PNM’s RFP process was reasonable, complied with RPS requirements, and consistent with industry standards. NEE’s Reply Brief was filed on October 15, 2018. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On June 1, 2018, PNM filed its 2019 renewable energy procurement plan. The plan meets RPS and diversity requirements for 2019 and 2020 using resources already approved by the NMPRC and did not propose any significant new procurements. PNM projects that the plan will be within the RCT in 2019 and will slightly exceed the RCT in 2020. Public hearings were held on the case in September and October 2018. On October 29, 2018, PNM and NMPRC staff filed a joint proposed recommended decision requesting the NMPRC accept PNM’s 2019 renewable energy procurement plan filing. The joint proposed recommended decision includes a requirement for PNM to periodically, or for certain events, inform the NMPRC of matters related to PNM’s PPA with Lightning Dock Geothermal. The NMPRC approved PNM’s 2019 renewable energy procurement plan on November 28, 2018.

Renewable Energy Rider

The NMPRC has authorized PNM to recover certain renewable procurement costs through a rate rider billed on a per KWh basis. In PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case, the NMPRC authorized continuation of the renewable rider. PNM recorded revenues from the rider of $41.4 million, $45.2 million, and $42.0 million in 2018, 2017, and 2016. Beginning in 2017, the cost of energy from New Mexico Wind is being recovered through the renewable rider, rather than through the FPPAC, in compliance with the NMPRC’s order in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case. The 2018 renewable energy procurement plan became effective on January 1, 2018. In its 2019 renewable energy procurement plan case, which was approved by the NMPRC on November 28, 2018, PNM proposed to collect $49.6 million.

Under the renewable rider, if PNM’s earned rate of return on jurisdictional equity in a calendar year, adjusted for weather and other items not representative of normal operations, exceeds the NMPRC-approved rate by 0.5%, PNM is required to refund the excess to customers during May through December of the following year. Preliminary calculations indicate PNM did not exceed such limitation in 2018.

Energy Efficiency and Load Management

Program Costs and Incentives/Disincentives

The New Mexico Efficient Use of Energy Act (“EUEA”) requires public utilities to achieve specified levels of energy savings and to obtain NMPRC approval to implement energy efficiency and load management programs. The EUEA requires the NMPRC to remove utility disincentives to implementing energy efficiency and load management programs and to provide incentives for such programs. The NMPRC has adopted a rule to implement this act. The EUEA sets an annual program budget equal to 3% of an electric utility’s annual revenue. PNM’s costs to implement approved programs are recovered through a rate rider.

On April 15, 2016, PNM filed an application for energy efficiency and load management programs to be offered in 2017. The proposed program portfolio consisted of ten programs with a total budget of $28.0 million. The application also sought approval of an incentive of $2.4 million based on targeted savings of 75 GWh. The actual incentive would be based on actual savings achieved. On January 11, 2017, the NMPRC approved an unopposed stipulation that established a method to ensure that funding of PNM’s energy efficiency program is equal to 3% of retail revenues, with an estimated 2017 energy efficiency funding level of $26.0 million, and approved a sliding scale profit incentive with a base level of 7.1% of program costs, equal to $1.8 million, if PNM achieves a minimum proscribed level of energy savings, increasing to a maximum of 9.0% depending on actual energy savings achieved above the minimum. On April 13, 2018, PNM filed its reconciliation of 2017 program costs and incentives, which indicated the incentive earned in 2017 is $2.3 million. The reconciliation filing and related incentive were accepted on May 23, 2018.

On April 14, 2017, PNM filed an application for energy efficiency and load management programs to be offered in 2018. The proposed program portfolio consists of a continuation of the ten programs approved in the 2016 application with a total budget of $25.1 million. The application also sought approval of a sliding scale incentive with a base incentive of $1.9 million if PNM is able to achieve savings of 53 GWh in 2018. As proposed, PNM would have earned an incentive of $2.1 million based on targeted savings of 70 GWh. The actual incentive would be based on actual savings achieved. PNM proposed to continue the same ten programs and a similar incentive mechanism in 2019, with a proposed budget of $28.2 million and a base level incentive of $2.1 million. On July 26, 2017, PNM, NMPRC staff, and other parties filed a stipulation that would resolve all issues in the case if approved by the NMPRC. Under the settlement, all of PNM’s proposed programs would be approved with limited modifications and PNM’s base level incentive would be $1.7 million and could earn an incentive of up to $1.9 million based on savings of 69 GWh in 2018. The settlement also established a base level incentive for PNM of $1.8 million with the opportunity to earn up to $2.7 million in 2019, and required PNM to make a filing in 2019 to address incentives to be earned in 2020. A public hearing was held in September 2017. On November 8, 2017, the Hearing Examiner issued a Certification of Stipulation recommending approval of the stipulation with various modifications, including adoption of a discount rate equal to the tax-adjusted WACC of 9.59% rather than the 7.71% proposed in the stipulation and modifying the program budgets to $23.6 million for 2018 and $24.9 million for 2019. On January 31, 2018, the NMPRC issued an order that largely accepted the certification with certain exceptions concerning the measurement and verification of the approved load management programs.

Energy Efficiency Rulemaking

In July 2012, the NMPRC opened an energy efficiency rulemaking docket to potentially address decoupling and incentives. Workshops to develop a proposed rule have been held, but no order proposing a rule has been issued. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

On January 25, 2017, the NMPRC opened another energy efficiency rulemaking docket to consider whether applications for approval of energy efficiency and load management programs should be filed every two years rather than annually. On June 21, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order that modifies the filing frequency for utility energy efficiency plans to every three years.

On June 21, 2017, the NMPRC also issued a new notice of proposed rulemaking to consider possible changes affecting a utility’s ability to modify NMPRC approved funding levels by up to 10% between energy efficiency program applications. This rulemaking is in response to consensus changes proposed by parties in the January 25, 2017 rulemaking. On September 13, 2017, the NMPRC approved the proposed rule. Under the new rule, PNM’s next application for energy efficiency and load management programs will be made in 2020 for programs to be offered beginning in 2021. As discussed below, PNM’s next energy efficiency application will include a proposal to implement an Advanced Metering Infrastructure pilot project.

Petition for Energy Efficiency Disincentive

As discussed above, PNM’s application in the NM 2016 Rate Case had requested a “lost contribution to fixed cost” mechanism to address the disincentives associated with PNM’s energy efficiency programs. In the revised stipulation to that case, PNM agreed to withdraw its proposal for such a mechanism and to address energy efficiency disincentives in a future docket. On March 2, 2018, PNM filed a petition proposing a “lost contribution to fixed cost mechanism” with substantially the same terms as those proposed in the NM 2016 Rate Case application. The Hearing Examiner issued a procedural order that included a public hearing to begin on October 30, 2018. Subsequently, the Hearing Examiner extended the deadline to file response testimony until December 19, 2018 and vacated the hearing schedule. On December 19, 2018, the Hearing Examiner approved a joint motion filed by PNM and other parties in the case to hold the proceedings in abeyance until mid-March 2019. The procedural schedule is to be reestablished at a future date. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

FPPAC Continuation Application

NMPRC rules require public utilities to file an application to continue using their FPPAC every four years. On April 23, 2018, PNM filed the required continuation application and requested that its FPPAC be continued without modification. On June 20, 2018, the NMPRC approved PNM’s continuation application.

Integrated Resource Plans

NMPRC rules require that investor owned utilities file an IRP every three years. The IRP is required to cover a 20-year planning period and contain an action plan covering the first four years of that period.

2014 IRP

PNM filed its 2014 IRP on July 1, 2014. The four-year action plan was consistent with the replacement resources identified in PNM’s application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. On July 31, 2014, several parties requested the NMPRC to not accept the 2014 IRP as compliant with NMPRC rule because to do so could affect the then pending proceeding on PNM’s application to abandon SJGS Units 2 and 3 and for CCNs for certain replacement resources (Note 16) and because they asserted that the 2014 IRP did not conform to the NMPRC’s IRP rule. The NMPRC issued an order in August 2014 that docketed a case to determine whether the 2014 IRP complied with applicable NMPRC rules. The order also held the case in abeyance pending the issuance of final, non-appealable orders in PNM’s 2015 renewable energy procurement plan case and its application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. The order regarding PNM’s application to abandon SJGS Units 2 and 3 as described in Note 16 states that the NMPRC will issue a Notice of Proposed Dismissal in the 2014 IRP docket. On May 4, 2016, the NMPRC issued the Notice of Proposed Dismissal, stating that the docket would be closed with prejudice within thirty days unless good cause was shown why the docket should remain open. On May 31, 2016, NEE filed a request to hold the protests filed against PNM’s 2014 IRP in abeyance or to dismiss those protests without prejudice. PNM responded on June 13, 2016 and requested that the NMPRC dismiss the case with prejudice. The NMPRC has not yet acted on its Notice of Proposed Dismissal or the request filed on May 31, 2016. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

2017 IRP

PNM filed its 2017 IRP on July 3, 2017. The 2017 IRP addresses the 20-year planning period, from 2017 through 2036 and includes an action plan describing PNM’s plan to implement the 2017 IRP in the four-year period following its filing. The 2017 IRP analyzed several scenarios utilizing assumptions that PNM continues service from its SJGS capacity beyond mid-2022 and that PNM retires its capacity after mid-2022. Key findings of the 2017 IRP include:


•	Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 after the expiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements would provide long-term cost savings for PNM’s customers


•	PNM exiting its ownership interest in Four Corners after its current coal supply agreement expires in 2031 would also save customers money


•	The best mix of new resources to replace the retired coal generation would include solar energy and flexible natural gas-fired peaking capacity; the mix could include energy storage, if the economics support it, and wind energy provided additional transmission capacity becomes available


•	Significant increases in future wind energy supplies will likely require new transmission capacity to be built from eastern New Mexico to PNM’s service territory


•	PNM should retain the currently leased capacity in PVNGS, which would avoid replacement with carbon-emitting generation


•	PNM should continue to develop and implement energy efficiency and demand management programs


•	PNM should assess the costs and benefits of participating in the California Independent System Operator Western Energy Imbalance Market


•	PNM should analyze its current Reeves Station to consider possible technology improvements to phase out the older generators and replace them with new, more flexible supplies or energy storage

Protests to the 2017 IRP were filed by several parties. The issues addressed in the protests included the future of PNM’s interests in SJGS, Four Corners, and PVNGS and the timing of future procurement of renewable resources. On January 16, 2018, the Hearing Examiner issued an order setting the scope of the proceedings as the 2017 IRP’s compliance with the applicable statute and NMPRC rules. Hearings were held in June 2018. On October 26, 2018, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision recommending that the NMPRC accept PNM’s 2017 IRP as compliant with the applicable statute and NMPRC rules. On December 19, 2018, the NMPRC issued a final order accepting the Hearing Examiner’s recommended decision. On January 18, 2019, the Board of the County of Commissioners for San Juan County, New Mexico, the City of Farmington, New Mexico, and other parties filed a Notice of Appeal with the NM Supreme Court regarding the NMPRC’s final order in PNM’s 2017 IRP. Statements of Issues in the appeal must be filed by March 9, 2019. On January 18, 2019, NEE submitted a motion requesting the NMPRC reconsider its acceptance of PNM’s 2017 IRP and alleging informational inadequacy and deficiencies in PNM’s filing. On January 29, 2019, PNM submitted a filing to the NMPRC in response to NEE’s motion for reconsideration. In its response, PNM stated that the issues raised by NEE had already been considered and rejected by the NMPRC in its December 19, 2018 final order and that the NMPRC lacks jurisdiction over the matters because the NMPRC’s final order has been appealed to the NM Supreme Court. The NMPRC did not take action on NEE’s motion for reconsideration. On February 19, 2019, NEE filed a motion with the NM Supreme Court to intervene in the appeal and to seek remand of the matter to the NMPRC. PNM plans to file a response to NEE’s motion by March 6, 2019. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

The NMPRC’s order concerning SJGS’ compliance with the BART requirements of the CAA discussed in Note 16 required PNM to make a filing in 2018 to determine the extent to which SJGS Units 1 and 4 should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after June 30, 2022. PNM submitted its December 2018 Compliance Filing to the NMPRC on December 31, 2018 indicating that, consistent with the conclusions reached in the 2017 IRP (Note 17), PNM’s customers would benefit from the retirement of PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022. The December 2018 Compliance Filing and the 2017 IRP are not a final determinations of PNM’s future generation portfolio. Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS capacity will require future NMPRC approval. See Note 16. In addition, PNM will be required to obtain NMPRC approval of an exit from Four Corners, which PNM will seek at an appropriate time in the future. Likewise, NMPRC approval of new generation resources through CCNs, PPAs, or other applicable filings, would be required. PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

Cost Recovery Related to Joining the EIM

The California Independent System Operator developed the Western Energy Imbalance Market (“EIM”) as a real-time wholesale energy trading market that enables participating electric utilities to buy and sell energy. The EIM aggregates the variability of electricity generation and load for multiple balancing authority areas and utility jurisdictions. In addition, the EIM facilitates greater integration of renewable resources through the aggregation of flexible resources by capturing diversity benefits from the expanded geographic footprint and the expanded potential uses for those resources.

In 2018, PNM completed a cost-benefit analysis of participating in the EIM. PNM’s analysis indicated participation in the EIM would provide substantial benefits to retail customers. On August 22, 2018, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC requesting, among other things, authorization to recover an estimated $20.9 million of initial capital investments and to establish a regulatory asset to recover an estimated $7.4 million of other expenses that would be incurred in order to join the EIM. PNM’s application proposed the regulatory asset be adjusted to provide for full recovery of such costs, including carrying charges, until the effective date of new rates in PNM’s next general rate case. PNM’s application also proposes the benefits of participating in the EIM be credited to retail customers through PNM’s existing FPPAC. A public hearing was held on December 12, 2018. On December 19, 2018, the NMPRC issued an order approving the establishment of a regulatory asset to recover PNM’s cost of joining the EIM. On January 17, 2019, ABCWUA filed a motion to reopen the case and to reconsider the NMPRC’s order approving the establishment of a regulatory asset. PNM submitted its response opposing reconsideration of the case on January 28, 2019. On February 6, 2019, the NMPRC issued an order granting rehearing and vacating the December 19, 2018 order. On February 24, 2019, Western Resource Advocates, and the Coalition for Clean and Affordable Energy filed a motion for an expedited final order, which was supported by PNM and other parties and opposed by ABCWUA. On February 27, 2019, the NMPRC issued a procedural order that appoints a hearing examiner and requires the hearing examiner to report to the NMPRC, by March 13, 2019, on whether the matter should be reopened. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

San Juan Generating Station Units 2 and 3 Retirement

On December 16, 2015, the NMPRC issued an order approving PNM’s retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 on December 31, 2017. On January 14, 2016, NEE filed an appeal of the order with the NM Supreme Court. SJGS Units 2 and 3 were retired in December 2017. On March 5, 2018, the NM Supreme Court rendered a decision affirming the NMPRC’s ruling, thereby denying NEE’s appeal. A request for rehearing of the NM Supreme Court’s decision was not filed by the statutory deadline. This matter is now concluded. Additional information concerning the NMPRC filing and related proceedings is set forth in Note 16.

San Juan Generating Station Unit 1 Outage

On March 17, 2018, a coal silo used to supply fuel to SJGS Unit 1 collapsed resulting in an outage. PNM initiated a review of the cause of the outage and promptly contacted the staff of the NMPRC to inform them of the event. To minimize the operational and financial impacts of this event, PNM accelerated the fall 2018 planned outage to be performed while the unit was out of service for this event. Repairs necessary to return Unit 1 to service were completed by July 5, 2018. Costs of repairing damages to the facility are being reimbursed under an existing property insurance policy that covers SJGS, subject to a deductible of $2.0 million. PNM’s cost of repairs of $1.0 million reflects insurance reimbursements and PNM’s 50% ownership interest in SJGS Unit 1.

On April 12, 2018, NEE filed a petition (jointly with certain other organizations) requesting that the NMPRC order an investigation into the SJGS Unit 1 event. The petition requested that the NMPRC order PNM to respond to the petition, that proceedings be set on this matter, and that PNM be required to provide a narrative explanation, cost/benefit analysis, and alternatives assessment used to determine that Unit 1 should be repaired rather than utilizing alternative resources. On April 25, 2018, the NMPRC issued an order requiring PNM to provide a factual statement of the nature and cause of the event, as well as the anticipated need for and schedule of repairs required. PNM was also required to address the necessity and appropriateness of the request for a cost/benefit analysis, alternatives assessment, and request for further proceedings. On May 8, 2018, PNM filed its response to the NMPRC order indicating that PNM used best practices when inspecting the SJGS coal silos during planned outages, that the damage to SJGS Unit 1 was repairable and could be made in a timely manner, that all but a limited amount of cost of the repairs are reimbursable under an existing insurance policy, and that further proceedings on the matter were unnecessary. In addition, PNM’s response indicated that if the unit was not repaired, customers would be exposed to significant contractual liabilities under the agreements governing the ownership of SJGS and would incur significant costs associated with the procurement of replacement power. On May 31, 2018, the NMPRC staff preliminarily recommended that the NMPRC not allow PNM to recover any costs associated with the SJGS Unit 1 coal silo repairs, including the cost of preventing similar failures on other SJGS coal silos, and that PNM reimburse customers for the loss of off-system sales during the time SJGS Unit 1 was in outage. The NMPRC staff also recommended, among other things, that further proceedings on the matter be deemed unnecessary provided PNM agree to hold customers harmless for such costs. On October 9, 2018, PNM filed a motion with the NMPRC requesting the inquiry docket be closed and stating the NMPRC staff’s proposal that PNM be required to absorb all losses related to the event, including the loss of off-system sales, is unwarranted and would result in piecemeal ratemaking. On November 15, 2018, the NMPRC staff filed a response to PNM’s motion proposing the investigation be closed provided, among other things, that PNM agree to hold customers harmless for PNM’s share of the uninsured costs to repairs SJGS for the event. In its response, PNM agreed that it would not seek recovery of the uninsured costs to repair the units. The NMPRC issued a final order to close the docket on December 5, 2018.

Advanced Metering Infrastructure Application

On February 26, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC requesting approval of a project to replace its existing customer metering equipment with Advanced Metering Infrastructure (“AMI”). The application asked the NMPRC to authorize the recovery of the cost of the project, up to $87.2 million, which was subsequently adjusted to $95.1 million, and includes the costs of customer education, severances for affected employees, and other costs, in future ratemaking proceedings, as well as to approve the recovery of the remaining undepreciated investment in existing metering equipment estimated to be approximately $33 million at the date of implementation. After extensive public hearings and discovery, on March 19, 2018, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision finding that PNM had not proven a net public benefit in the case and recommending the NMPRC not approve the application. On April 2, 2018, PNM filed a statement on exceptions to the recommended decision indicating, among other things, that PNM disagreed with the finding that the record did not demonstrate a net public benefit to customers, but that PNM would not take exception to a recommendation to not approve the application. No other parties filed exceptions to the recommended decision by the required deadline. On April 11, 2018, the NMPRC adopted an order accepting the recommended decision and disapproving PNM’s application. The order indicated PNM’s next energy efficiency plan application should include a proposal for an AMI pilot project.

Facebook, Inc. Data Center Project

On July 8, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for approval of arrangements in connection with services to be provided to Facebook, Inc. for a new data center to be constructed in PNM’s service area. On August 17, 2016, the NMPRC approved the application, which included:


•	Two new electric service rates


•	A PPA under which PNM would purchase renewable energy from PNMR Development


•	A special service contract to provide electric service

Facebook’s service requirements include the acquisition by PNM of a sufficient amount of new renewable energy resources and RECs to match the energy and capacity requirements of the data center. PNM’s initial procurement was to be through a PPA with PNMR Development for the energy production from 30 MW of new solar capacity that PNMR Development was to construct. As discussed in Note 1, PNMR Development transferred its interests in the solar capacity and the PPA to NMRD in December 2017. The cost of the PPA is passed through to Facebook under a rate rider. A special service rate is applied to Facebook’s energy consumption in those hours of the month when their consumption exceeds the energy production from the renewable resources. Of the solar capacity, 10 MW began commercial operation in each of January 2018, March 2018, and May 2018.

In late 2017, PNM entered into three separate 25-year PPAs to purchase renewable energy and RECs to be used by PNM to supply additional renewable energy to Facebook. These PPAs were subject to NMPRC approval, which was granted on March 21, 2018. These PPAs include the purchase of the power and RECs from:


•	Casa Mesa Wind, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC., which is expected to be located near House, New Mexico, have a total capacity of 50 MW, and became operational in November 2018


•	A 166 MW portion of the La Joya Wind Project, owned by Avangrid Renewables, LLC, which is expected to be located near Estancia, New Mexico and be operational in November 2020


•	Route 66 Solar Energy Center, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC., which is expected to be located west of Albuquerque, New Mexico, have a total capacity of 50 MW, and be operational in December 2021

On August 24, 2018, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC requesting approval to enter into two 25-year PPAs to purchase renewable energy and RECs from an aggregate of approximately 100 MW of capacity from two solar-PV facilities to be owned and operated by NMRD to supply power to Facebook. The cost of these PPAs will be passed through to Facebook under PNM’s rider. The NMPRC approved PNM’s application on October 17, 2018. NMRD is required to obtain FERC approval of the PPAs. Subject to FERC approval, the first 50 MW of these facilities is expected to begin commercial operation in December 2019 and the remaining capacity is expected to begin commercial operation in June 2020.

Hazard Sharing Agreements

On June 1, 2016, PNM and Tri-State entered into a one-year hazard sharing agreement, which expired on May 31, 2017. PNM and Tri-State entered into an additional agreement, under substantially identical terms, for a term of five years beginning June 1, 2017, subject to NMPRC approval. NMPRC approval was not required for the one-year agreement but was required for the five-year agreement. On May 10, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order approving the five-year agreement.

Under these agreements, each party sells the other party 100 MW of capacity and energy from each party’s designated primary resource, which is SJGS Unit 4 for PNM and Springerville Generating Station Unit 3 for Tri-State, on a unit contingent basis subject to certain performance guarantees. The agreements reduce the magnitude of each party’s single largest generating hazard and assist in enhancing the reliability and efficiency of their respective operations. Both purchases and sales are made at the same market index price. PNM passes the sales and purchases through to customers under PNM’s FPPAC. Information about PNM’s purchases and sales is as follows:



	Sales			Purchases
	GWh	Amount		GWh	Amount
		(In millions)			(In millions)

Year ended December 31, 2018	725.7	$	25.8	822.7	$	28.7
Year ended December 31, 2017	827.1	23.6		849.0	24.2
Year ended December 31, 2016	482.3	12.8		484.6	12.9

Formula Transmission Rates

PNM charges wholesale electric transmission service customers using a formula rate mechanism pursuant to which wholesale transmission service rates are calculated annually in accordance with an approved formula. The formula reflects a ROE of 10% and includes updating cost of service components, including investment in plant and operating expenses, based on information contained in PNM’s annual financial report filed with FERC, as well as including projected large transmission capital projects to be placed into service in the following year. The projections included are subject to true-up in the following year formula rate. Certain items, including changes to return on equity and depreciation rates, require a separate filing to be made with FERC before being included in the formula rate.

Firm-Requirements Wholesale Customers

Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc.

PNM had a PPA with NEC, previously PNM’s largest firm-requirements wholesale customer, that had an expiration date of December 31, 2035. On April 8, 2015, NEC filed a petition for a declaratory order requesting that FERC find that NEC could purchase an unlimited amount of power and energy from third party supplier(s) under its PSA with PNM. Following proceedings before a settlement judge, PNM and NEC entered into, and filed with FERC, a settlement agreement on October 29, 2015 that includes certain amendments to the PSA and related contracts on file with FERC. FERC approved the settlement on January 21, 2016. Under the settlement agreement, PNM served all of NEC’s load through December 31, 2015 at rates that were substantially consistent with those provided under the PSA. In 2016, PNM served all of NEC’s load at reduced demand and energy rates from those under the PSA. Beginning January 1, 2016, NEC also paid certain third-party transmission costs that it only partially paid previously. The PSA and related transmission agreements terminated on December 31, 2016. In 2017, PNM served 10 MW of NEC’s load under a short-term coordination tariff at a rate lower than provided under the PSA. Amounts billed to NEC were $4.5 million, and $20.0 million in the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016. PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case discussed above reflects a reallocation of costs among regulatory jurisdictions reflecting the termination of the contract to serve NEC.

TNMP

TNMP 2018 Rate Case

On May 30, 2018, TNMP filed a general rate proceeding with the PUCT (the “TNMP 2018 Rate Case”) requesting an annual increase to base rates of $25.9 million based on a requested ROE of 10.5%, a cost of debt of 7.2%, and a capital structure comprised of 50% debt and 50% equity. TNMP’s request included $7.7 million of new rate riders to recover Hurricane Harvey restoration, rate case, and additional vegetation management costs. The application included the integration of revenues currently recorded under the AMS rider and collection of other unrecovered AMS investments into base rates. In 2017, TNMP recorded revenues of $21.8 million under the AMS rider. The TNMP 2018 Rate Case application also proposed to return the regulatory liability recorded at December 31, 2017 related to federal tax reform to customers and to reduce the federal corporate income tax rate to 21%. As discussed in Note 18, at December 31, 2017, TNMP recorded a regulatory liability of $146.5 million to reflect the change in federal corporate income tax rates that will be refunded to customers in future periods. The TNMP 2018 Rate Case application proposed to refund $14.4 million of this regulatory liability over a period of five years and the remaining amount over the estimated useful lives of plant in service as of December 31, 2017.

On November 2, 2018, TNMP and other parties to the case filed an unopposed settlement agreement that was approved by the PUCT on December 20, 2018. The approved settlement results in a $10.0 million annual increase to base rates. The key elements of the settlement include a ROE of 9.65%, a cost of debt of 6.44%, and a capital structure comprised of 55% debt and 45% equity. The settlement excludes certain items from rate base that were requested in TNMP’s original filing, including approximately $10.6 million of transmission investments that TNMP included in January 2019 transmission cost of service filing. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, TNMP will refund approximately $37.8 million of the regulatory liability recorded at December 31, 2017 related to tax reform to customers over a period of five years and the remaining amount over the estimated useful lives of plant in service as of December 31, 2017. The settlement agreement also approves TNMP’s request to integrate revenues historically recorded under TNMP’s AMS rider, as well as other unrecovered AMS investments, into base rates. In 2017, TNMP recorded revenues of $21.8 million under the AMS rider. The settlement also approves TNMP’s request for new depreciation rates, and a new rider to recover Hurricane Harvey restoration costs. TNMP’s costs related to Hurricane Harvey restoration efforts will be offset by amounts to be refunded to customers resulting from the federal income tax rate beginning on January 25, 2018 (Note 18). At December 31, 2018, the balance of Hurricane Harvey restoration costs, net of amounts owed to customers for the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate during 2018, was $1.6 million and is reflected as regulatory assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The new rider will be charged to customers over a period of no more than five years beginning on the effective date of new base rates. New rates under the TNMP 2018 Rate Case were effective beginning on January 1, 2019.

Advanced Meter System Deployment

In July 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement and authorized an AMS deployment plan that permits TNMP to collect $113.4 million in deployment costs through a surcharge over a 12-year period. TNMP began collecting the surcharge on August 11, 2011. Deployment of advanced meters began in September 2011. TNMP completed its mass deployment in 2016 and has installed more than 242,000 advanced meters. The TNMP 2018 Rate Case and associated approved settlement discussed above included a reconciliation of AMS costs and integrate TNMP’s AMS recovery into base rates beginning on January 1, 2019.

Energy Efficiency

TNMP recovers the costs of its energy efficiency programs through an energy efficiency cost recovery factor (“EECRF”), which includes projected program costs, under or over collected costs from prior years, rate case expenses, and performance bonuses (if the programs exceed mandated savings goals). The following sets forth TNMP’s approved EECRF increases:



Effective Date	Aggregate Collection Amount		Performance Bonus
	(In millions)
March 1, 2016	$	6.0	$	0.7
March 1, 2017	6.0		0.8
March 1, 2018	6.0		1.1
March 1, 2019	5.6		0.8

Transmission Cost of Service Rates

TNMP can update its transmission cost of service (“TCOS”) rates twice per year to reflect changes in its invested capital although updates are not allowed while a general rate case is in process. Updated rates reflect the addition and retirement of transmission facilities, including appropriate depreciation, federal income tax and other associated taxes, and the approved rate of return on such facilities.

The following sets forth TNMP’s recent interim transmission cost rate increases:



Effective Date	Approved Increase in Rate Base		Annual Increase in Revenue
	(In millions)
March 23, 2016	$	25.8	$	4.3
September 8, 2016	9.5		1.8
March 14, 2017	30.2		4.8
September 13, 2017	27.5		4.7
March 27, 2018	32.0		0.6

On January 25, 2019, TNMP filed an application to further update its transmission rates, which would increase revenues by $14.3 million annually, based on an increase in rate base of $111.8 million. The application is pending before the PUCT.

Periodic Distribution Rate Adjustment

PUCT rules permit interim rate adjustments to reflect changes in investments in distribution assets. Distribution utilities may file for a periodic rate adjustment between April 1 and April 8 of each year as long as the electric utility is not earning more than its authorized rate of return using weather-normalized data. However, TNMP has not made a filing to adjust rates for additional investments in distribution assets.

Competition Transition Charge Compliance Filing

In connection with the adoption of Senate Bill 7 by the Texas Legislature in 1999 that deregulated electric utilities operating within ERCOT, TNMP was allowed to recover its stranded costs through the CTC and to recover a carrying charge on the CTC. The amounts yet to be collected are recorded as regulatory assets by TNMP. Further, the order authorizing TNMP’s CTC included a true-up provision requiring an adjustment to the CTC due to a cumulative over- or under-collection of revenues, including interest, greater-than or equal to 15% of the most recent annual CTC funding amount. On March 13, 2017, TNMP made a filing to true-up the CTC. The requested adjustment reduces the collection of the amortization by $1.1 million annually. The change was approved on April 5, 2017 and went into effect on June 1, 2017. TNMP estimates the CTC will be fully recovered in November 2020.

Order Related to Changes in Federal Income Tax Rates

On January 25, 2018, the PUCT issued an accounting order that addresses the change in the federal corporate income tax rates on investor-owned utilities in the state of Texas. The order requires investor-owned utilities to record a regulatory liability equal to the reduction in accumulated federal deferred income tax balances at the end of 2017 due to the change in the federal corporate income tax rate.

In addition, the order requires that a regulatory liability be recorded to reflect the difference between revenues collected under existing rates and those that would have been collected had those rates been set reflecting federal income tax reform beginning on the date of the order (Note 18). In compliance with the PUCT order, during the year ended December 31, 2018, TNMP reduced revenues by $5.4 million to reflect the impact of the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate beginning January 25, 2018. The amount owed will be offset against TNMP’s Hurricane Harvey restoration costs and refunded to customers as a component of a new rate rider over a period of no more than five years beginning on January 1, 2019.