There are various claims and lawsuits pending against the Company. In addition, the Company 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 proceedings in the normal course of its business. See Note 17. 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. 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.

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 $1.3 million, $1.3 million, and $2.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 into the qualified and non-qualified trust funds. The market value of the trusts at December 31, 2019 and 2018 was $336.0 million and $287.1 million. See Note 17 for additional discussion of the NM Supreme Court’s decisions in PNM’s appeal of the NMPRC’s decisions in the NM 2015 Rate Case.

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 the DOE entered into a settlement agreement that establishes a process for the payment of claims for costs incurred through December 31, 2019. Under the settlement agreement, APS must submit claims annually for payment of allowable costs. PNM records estimated claims on a quarterly basis. The benefit from the claims is passed through to customers under the FPPAC to the extent applicable to NMPRC regulated operations.

PVNGS has sufficient capacity at its on-site Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (“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 U.S. 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 March 22, 2019, the Governor signed into New Mexico state law Senate Bill 489, known as the Energy Transition Act (“ETA”). The ETA became effective as of June 14, 2019 and sets a statewide standard that requires investor-owned electric utilities to have specified percentages of their electric-generating portfolios be from renewable and zero-carbon generating resources. Prior to the enactment of the ETA, the REA established a mandatory RPS requiring utilities to acquire a renewable energy portfolio equal to 10% of retail electric sales by 2011, 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. The ETA amends the REA and requires utilities operating in New Mexico to have renewable portfolios equal to 20% by 2020, 40% by 2025, 50% by 2030, 80% by 2040, and 100% zero-carbon energy by 2045. The ETA also amends sections of the REA to allow for the recovery of undepreciated investments and decommissioning costs related to qualifying EGUs that the NMPRC has required be removed from retail jurisdictional rates, provided replacement resources to be included in retail rates have lower or zero-carbon emissions. The ETA requires the NMPRC to review and approve utilities’ annual renewable portfolio plans to ensure compliance with the RPS. The ETA also directs the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board to adopt standards of performance that limit CO₂ emissions to no more than

The ETA provides for a transition from fossil-fuel generation resources to renewable and other carbon-free resources through certain provisions relating to the abandonment of coal-fired generating facilities. These provisions include the use of “energy transition bonds,” which are designed to be highly rated bonds that can be issued to finance certain costs of abandoning coal-fired facilities that are retired prior to January 1, 2023 for facilities operated by a “qualifying utility,” or prior to January 1, 2032 for facilities that are not operated by the qualifying utility. The amount of energy transition bonds that can be issued to recover abandonment costs is limited to the lesser of $375.0 million or 150% of the undepreciated investment of the facility as of the abandonment date. Proceeds provided by energy transition bonds must be used only for purposes related to providing utility service to customers and to pay “financing costs” (as defined by the ETA). These costs may include plant decommissioning and coal mine reclamation costs provided those costs have not previously been recovered from customers or disallowed by the NMPRC or by a court order. See Note 17 for a discussion of the NM Supreme Court’s decision to affirm the NMPRC’s disallowance of certain costs, including the cost of BDT at SJGS, in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case. Proceeds from energy transition bonds may also be used to fund severances for employees of the retired facility and related coal mine and to promote economic development, education and job training in areas impacted by the retirement of the coal-fired facilities. Energy transition bonds must be issued under a NMPRC approved financing order, are secured by “energy transition property,” are non-recourse to the issuing utility, and must be repaid by a non-bypassable charge paid by all customers of the issuing utility. These customer charges are subject to an adjustment mechanism designed to provide for timely and complete payment of principal and interest due under the energy transition bonds.

The ETA also provides that utilities must obtain NMPRC approval of competitively procured replacement resources that shall be evaluated based on their cost, economic development opportunity, ability to provide jobs with comparable pay and benefits to those lost upon retirement of the facility, and that do not exceed emissions thresholds specified in the ETA. In determining whether to approve replacement resources, the NMPRC must give preference to resources with the least environmental impacts, those with higher ratios of capital costs to fuel costs, and those located in the school district of the abandoned facility. The ETA also provides for the procurement of energy storage facilities and gives utilities discretion to maintain, control, and operate these systems to ensure reliable and efficient service.

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 was demonstrated that the emissions from these sources caused or contributed to visibility impairment in any Class I area, then BART must have been installed by the beginning of 2018. For all future SIP planning periods, states must evaluate whether additional emissions reduction measures may be needed to continue making reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions.

On December 20, 2018, EPA released a new guidance document on tracking visibility progress for the second planning period. EPA is allowing states discretion to develop SIPs that may differ from EPA’s guidance as long as they are consistent with the CAA and other applicable regulations. On August 20, 2019, EPA finalized the draft guidance that was released in 2017 as a companion to the regional haze rule revisions. The final guidance differs from the draft in several ways. For example, the final guidance recognizes that sources already subject to BART may not need to be re-evaluated under the full four-factor analysis whereas the draft guidance encouraged states to evaluate all sources regardless of whether they were previously subject to BART. In addition, the final guidance recognizes that states may consider both visibility benefits and the cost of different control options when applying the four-factor analysis whereas the draft guidance recommended states require any control measures identified to be reasonable after considering the four-factor analysis alone. SIPs for the second compliance period are due in July 2021. NMED is currently preparing its SIP for the second compliance period and has notified PNM that it will not require a regional haze four-factor analysis for SJGS provided PNM is still planning to retire its share of SJGS in 2022. PNM is continuing to evaluate the potential impacts of these matters.

BART Compliance – SJGS is a source that is subject to the statutory obligations of the CAA to reduce visibility impacts. PNM, as the operating agent for SJGS, engaged in discussions with NMED and EPA 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 (the Revised State Implementation Plan or “RSIP”), which was approved by the EPA. 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”). 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 time frame 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, parties’ appeals of that order, and the NM Supreme Court’s May 2019 decision in the appeals.

SJGS Units 2 and 3 were shut down in December 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 losses recorded upon the NMPRC’s December 2015 approval and subsequent adjustments totaling $128.6 million. PNM also recorded a regulatory asset of $125.5 million for the 50% of the undepreciated book value that is being recovered from ratepayers pursuant to the NMPRC’s December 2015 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. All appeals of this matter have been resolved and the matter is now concluded.

December 2018 Compliance Filing – As discussed above, in December 2015 PNM received NMPRC approval for a plan to comply with EPA’s regional haze rule at SJGS. Among other things, the NMPRC’s December 2015 order required that, no later than December 31, 2018, PNM make a filing with the NMRPC to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s customers’ needs after June 30, 2022 (the “December 2018 Compliance Filing”). The December 2018 Compliance Filing was required to be made before PNM entered into a binding commitment for post-2022 coal supply but after PNM received firm pricing and other terms for the supply of coal at SJGS, unless PNM did not intend to pursue an agreement for post-2022 coal supply at SJGS. The NMPRC’s December 2015 order also indicated that, if SJGS Unit 4 is abandoned with undepreciated investment on PNM’s books, PNM is prohibited from recovering the undepreciated investment of its 132 MW interest and required that PNM’s 65 MW interest in SJGS Unit 4 be treated as excluded merchant plant. PNM is currently depreciating virtually all of its investments in SJGS through 2053, which reflects the period of time over which the NMPRC has authorized PNM to recover its investment in SJGS from New Mexico retail customers.

PNM submitted the December 2018 Compliance Filing to the NMPRC on December 31, 2018 indicating that, consistent with the conclusions reached in PNM’s 2017 IRP, PNM’s customers would benefit from the retirement of PNM’s share of SJGS after the current SJGS CSA expires in mid-2022. The December 2018 Compliance Filing also indicated that, pursuant to the terms of the agreements governing SJGS, all of the SJGS owners except for Farmington provided written notice that they do not intend to extend the SJGS operating agreements beyond their June 30, 2022 expiration dates, and that PNM has provided written notice to the San Juan mine operator that PNM does not intend to extend the SJGS CSA beyond June 30, 2022. On January 30, 2019, the NMPRC issued an order initiating a proceeding and requiring PNM to submit an application for the abandonment of PNM’s share of SJGS by March 1, 2019. PNM filed a motion requesting the NMPRC vacate the January 30, 2019 order, which was deemed denied. On February 27, 2019, PNM filed a petition with the NM Supreme Court stating that the requirements of the January 30, 2019 order exceed the NMPRC’s authority by, among other things, mandating PNM to make a filing that is legally voluntary, and that the order is contrary to NMPRC precedent which requires abandonment applications to also include identified replacement resources and other information that would not be available to PNM by March 1, 2019. On March 1, 2019, the NM Supreme Court granted a temporary stay of the NMPRC’s order. Various parties intervened in the petition. On June 26, 2019, and after the effective date of the ETA, the NM Supreme Court lifted the stay and denied PNM’s petition without discussion. On July 1, 2019, PNM filed its SJGS Abandonment Application. See Note 17.

GAAP requires that long-lived assets be tested for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying value may not be recoverable. As of December 31, 2018, PNM evaluated the events surrounding its future participation in SJGS and determined that it is more likely than not that PNM’s share of SJGS will be retired in 2022. As a result, PNM performed an impairment analysis that assumed SJGS would not continue to operate through 2053, as previously approved by the NMPRC. PNM’s impairment analysis indicated that, pursuant to the NMPRC’s December 2015 order, PNM’s undepreciated 132 MW interest in SJGS Unit 4 at June 30, 2022 will not be recovered from customers; that the estimated future cash flows expected to result from the operation of SJGS Unit 4 through June 30, 2022 are not sufficient to provide for recovery of PNM’s 65 MW merchant interest in the facility; and that it is unlikely PNM will be able to sell or transfer its interests in SJGS to third parties at amounts sufficient to provide for their recovery. As a result, as of December 31, 2018, PNM recorded a pre-tax impairment of its investment in SJGS of approximately $35.0 million, which is reflected as regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. This amount includes the entire $11.9 million carrying value of PNM’s 65 MW interest in SJGS Unit 4

NEE Complaint – On March 31, 2016, NEE filed a complaint with the NMPRC alleging that PNM failed to comply with its discovery obligation in the case authorizing the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and requesting the NMPRC investigate whether financing provided by NM Capital to the former owner of SJCC (the “Westmoreland Loan”) could adversely affect PNM’s ability to provide electric service to its retail customers. On January 31, 2018, NEE filed a motion asking the NMPRC to investigate whether PNM’s relationship with the former owner of SJCC could be harmful to PNM’s customers. On May 23, 2018, PNM filed its response to the NMPRC staff’s comments noting that the Westmoreland Loan was paid in full on May 22, 2018. On October 11, 2018, PNM notified the NMPRC that the former owner of SJCC, Westmoreland, had filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As discussed in Note 10, on March 15, 2019, Westmoreland announced that it had emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a privately held company owned and operated by a group of its former creditors. Under the reorganization, all the assets of SJCC were sold to WSJ LLC. As successor entity to SJCC, WSJ LLC assumed all rights and obligations of Westmoreland including obligations to PNM under the SJGS CSA. The NMPRC has taken no further action on NEE’s complaints. PNM is not able to predict the potential outcome of this matter but does not anticipate the NMPRC will take any further action.

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, certain participants indicated their 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”). 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. 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 certain capital improvements. 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.

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. As ordered by the NMPRC, PNM treats the 65 MW interest as merchant utility plant that is excluded from retail rates. PNM has 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. See Note 9. 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. See Note 17 for additional discussion of PNM’s July 1, 2019 SJGS Abandonment Application.

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 control technology on each of Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018. Installation of SCRs on Four Corners Unit 5 was completed in March 2018 and the installation on Unit 4 was completed in June 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

The Four Corners plant site is located on land within the Navajo Nation. APS, on behalf of the Four Corners participants, negotiated amendments to the existing agreement with the Navajo Nation, which extends the owners’ right to operate the plant on the site to July 2041. The DOI issued a Record of Decision on July 17, 2015 approving the 25-year 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.

Four Corners Federal Agency Lawsuit – On April 20, 2016, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit against OSM and other federal agencies in the U.S. 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 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 dismissal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 9, 2017, and the court granted their subsequent motion to expedite the appeal. Oral arguments for the appeal were held on March 7, 2019. On July 29, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the District Court’s dismissal of the case. In September 2019, the environmental groups filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in December 2019. PNM cannot predict whether parties will seek further review of this matter by means of petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court or the outcome of potential future litigation.

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 meant that the Clean Power Plan was not in effect and neither states nor sources were 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 was being re-evaluated, which was granted.

On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Energy Independence. The order put 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 directed the EPA Administrator to review and, if appropriate and consistent with law, suspend, revise, or rescind (1) the Clean Power Plan, (2) the New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) 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. In response to the Executive Order, EPA filed a petition with the DC

EPA’s efforts to replace the Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy rule began on October 10, 2017, when 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 proposed a legal interpretation concluding that the Clean Power Plan exceeded EPA’s statutory authority. On August 31, 2018, EPA published a proposed rule, known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule, to replace the Clean Power Plan. On June 19, 2019, EPA released the final version of the Affordable Clean Energy rule. EPA takes three actions in the final rule: (1) repealing the Clean Power Plan; (2) promulgating the Affordable Clean Energy rule; and (3) revising the implementing regulations for all emission guidelines issued under Clean Air Act Section 111(d), which, among other things, extends the deadline for state plans and the timing for EPA’s approval process. The final rule is very similar to the August 2018 proposed rule. EPA set the Best System of Emissions Reduction (“BSER”) for existing coal-fired power plants as heat rate efficiency improvements based on a range of “candidate technologies” that can be applied inside the fence-line. Rather than setting a specific numerical standard of performance, EPA’s rule directs states to determine which of the candidate technologies to apply to each coal-fired unit and establish standards of performance based on the degree of emission reduction achievable based on the application of BSER. The final rule requires states to submit a plan to EPA by July 8, 2022 and then EPA has one year to approve the plan. If states do not submit a plan or their submitted plan is not acceptable, EPA will have two years to develop a federal plan. The Affordable Clean Energy rule is not expected to impact SJGS since EPA’s final approval of a state SIP would occur after the planned shutdown of SJGS in 2022 (subject to NMPRC approval).

While corresponding NSR reform regulations were proposed as part of the proposed Affordable Clean Energy rule, the final rule did not include such reform measures. EPA has indicated that it plans to finalize the proposed NSR reform in 2020. Unrelated to the Affordable Clean Energy rule, EPA issued a proposed rule on August 1, 2019 to clarify one aspect of the pre-construction review process for evaluating whether the NSR permitting program would apply to a proposed project at an existing source of emissions. The proposed rule clarifies that both emissions increases and decreases resulting from a project are to be considered in determining whether the proposed project will result in an increase in air emissions.

On December 20, 2018, EPA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would revise the Carbon Pollution Standards rule published in October 2015 for new, reconstructed, or modified coal-fired EGUs. The proposed rule would revise the standards for new coal-fired EGUs based on the revised BSER as the most efficient demonstrated steam cycle (e.g., supercritical steam conditions for large units and subcritical steam conditions for small units), instead of partial carbon capture and sequestration. As a result, the proposed rule contains less stringent CO₂ emission performance standards for new units. EPA has also proposed revisions to the standards for reconstructed and modified fossil-fueled power plants to align with the proposed standards for new units. EPA is not proposing any changes nor reopening the standards of performance for newly constructed or reconstructed stationary combustion turbines. Comments on the proposal were due on March 18, 2019 and a final rule is expected in 2020.

PNM’s review of the GHG emission reductions standards under the Affordable Clean Energy rule and the revised proposed Carbon Pollution Standards rule is ongoing. The Affordable Clean Energy rule has been challenged by several parties and may be impacted by further litigation. As discussed above, SJGS may also be required to comply with additional CO₂ emissions restrictions issued by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board pursuant to the recently enacted ETA. PNM cannot predict the impact these standards may have on its operations or a range of the potential costs of compliance, if any.

SO₂ Standard – On May 13, 2014, EPA released the draft data requirements rule for the 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS, which directs state and tribal air agencies to characterize current air quality in areas with large SO₂ sources to identify maximum 1-hour SO₂ concentrations. This characterization would result in these areas being designated as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for compliance with the 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS. On March 2, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved a settlement that imposed deadlines for EPA to identify areas that violate the NAAQS standards for 1-hour SO₂ emissions. The settlement resulted from a lawsuit brought by Earthjustice on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council under the CAA. The consent decree required, among other things, that EPA must issue designations for areas for which states have adopted a new monitoring network under the proposed data requirements rule by December 2020. 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 SO₂ non-attainment designations. NMED did not receive a letter.

On August 11, 2015, EPA released the Data Requirements Rule for SO₂, telling states how to model or monitor to determine attainment or nonattainment with the new 1-hour SO₂ 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 its formal modeling report regarding attainment status to EPA. The modeling indicated that no area in New Mexico exceeds the 1-hour SO₂ standard. NMED submitted the first annual report for SJGS as required by the Data Requirements Rule in June 2018. That report recommended that no further modeling was warranted due to decreased SO₂ emissions. NMED submitted the second annual modeling report to EPA in July 2019. That report retained the recommendation that no further modeling is needed at this time and is subject to EPA review.

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 required the installation of SNCRs. The revised permit also required the reduction of SO₂emissions 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, SO₂, and particulate matter. These reductions 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 a discussion of the regulatory treatment of BDT in Note 17.

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 important in light of the more stringent ozone NAAQS final rule since western states like New Mexico and Arizona are subject to elevated background ozone transport from natural local sources, such as wildfires and stratospheric inversions, and transported via winds from distant sources in other regions or countries. EPA finalized the rule on October 3, 2016 and released related guidance in 2018 and 2019 to help implement its new exceptional events policy.

NMED has responsibility for bringing the small area in Dona Ana County designated as marginal/non-attainment for ozone into compliance and will look at all sources of NOx and volatile organic compounds. On November 22, 2019, EPA issued findings that several states, including New Mexico, had failed to submit SIPs for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In response, in December 2019, NMED published the Public Review Draft of the New Mexico 2013 NAAQS Good Neighbor SIP that outlines the strategies and emissions control measures that are expected to improve air quality in the area by May 8, 2021. These strategies and measures would aim to reduce the amount of NOx and volatile organic compounds emitted to the atmosphere and will rely upon current or upcoming federal rules, new or revised state rules, and other programs.

In February 2013, WEG filed a Petition for Review in the U.S. 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 challenged several unrelated mining plan modification approvals, which were each separately approved by OSM. WEG alleged 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 sought 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 concerned San Juan mine. WEG’s allegations concerning the San Juan mine arose from OSM administrative actions in 2008. SJCC, as San Juan mine operator at the time, intervened in this matter. In 2016, OSM filed a Motion for Voluntary Remand to allow the agency to conduct a new environmental analysis and 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 could continue in the interim and administratively closed the litigation. If OSM had not completed the EIS within the time frame provided, the court had authority to order immediate vacatur of the mining plan absent a further court order based on good cause shown. The final EIS, which allows for continued mining beyond 2022 at quantities similar to those currently being provided, was approved on August 26, 2019. PNM cannot predict if the revised final EIS will be subject to additional legal challenge.

Four Corners is located on the Navajo Nation and is held under easements granted by the federal government, as well as agreements with the Navajo Nation which grant each of the owners the right to operate on the site. 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,

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. 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.

On May 23, 2018, several environmental groups sued EPA Region IX in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court over EPA’s failure to timely reissue the Four Corners NPDES permit. The petitioners asked the court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling EPA Region IX to take final action on the pending NPDES permit by a reasonable date. EPA subsequently reissued the NPDES permit on June 12, 2018. The permit did not contain conditions related to the cooling water intake structure rule as EPA determined that the facility has achieved BTA for both impingement and entrainment by operating a closed-cycle recirculation system. On July 16, 2018, several environmental groups filed a petition for review with EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board concerning the reissued permit. The environmental groups alleged that the permit was reissued in contravention of several requirements under the Clean Water Act and did not contain required provisions concerning certain revised effluent limitation guidelines, existing-source regulations governing cooling-water intake structures, and effluent limits for surface seepage and subsurface discharges from coal-ash disposal facilities. On December 19, 2018, EPA withdrew the Four Corners NPDES permit in order to examine issues raised by the environmental groups. Withdrawal of the permit moots the appeal pending before the Environmental Appeals Board. EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board thereafter dismissed the environmental groups’ appeal. EPA issued an updated NPDES permit on September 30, 2019. The permit has been stayed pending an appeal filed by several environmental groups on November 1, 2019 to EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter or whether it will have a material impact on PNM’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

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.

The Effluent Limitations Guidelines rule was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by numerous parties. On April 12, 2017, EPA signed a notice indicating its intent to reconsider portions of the rule, and on August 22, 2017, the Fifth Circuit issued an order severing the issues under reconsideration and holding the case in abeyance as to those issues. However, the court allowed challenges to other portions of the rule to proceed. On April 12, 2019, the Fifth Circuit granted those challenges and issued an opinion vacating several portions of the rule, specifically those related to legacy wastewater and leachate, for which the court deemed the standards selected by EPA arbitrary and capricious.

On September 18, 2017, EPA published a final rule for postponement of certain compliance dates, which have not yet passed for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines rule. The 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. Although the new deadlines were challenged in court, the Fifth Circuit rejected those challenges on August 28, 2019. On November 22, 2019, EPA published a proposed rule revising the original Effluent Limitation Guidelines while maintaining the compliance dates. Comments were due January 21, 2020.

PNM and NMED are parties to agreements under which PNM has installed a remediation system to treat water from a City of Santa Fe municipal supply well and an extraction well to address gasoline contamination in the groundwater at the site of PNM’s former Santa Fe Generating Station and service center. A 2008 NMED site inspection report states that neither the source nor extent of contamination at the site has been determined and that the source may not be the former Santa Fe Generating Station. During 2013 and 2014, PNM and NMED collected additional samples that showed elevated concentrations of nitrate and volatile organic compounds in some of the monitoring wells at the site. In addition, one monitoring well contained free-phase hydrocarbon products. PNM collected a sample of the product for “fingerprint” analysis. The results of this analysis indicated the product was a mixture of older and newer fuels. The presence of newer fuels in the sample suggests the hydrocarbon product likely originated from off-site sources. In December 2015, PNM and NMED entered into a memorandum of understanding to address changing groundwater conditions at the site under which PNM agreed to continue hydrocarbon investigation under the supervision of NMED. Qualified costs are eligible for payment through the New Mexico Corrective Action Fund (“CAF”), which is administered by the NMED Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau. In March 2019, PNM received notice from NMED that an abatement plan for the site is required to address concentrations of previously identified compounds, unrelated to those discussed above, found in the groundwater. NMED approved PNM’s abatement plan proposal, which covers field work and reporting.

The City of Santa Fe has stopped operating its well at the site, which is needed for PNM’s groundwater remediation system to operate. As a result, PNM has stopped performing remediation activities at the site. However, PNM’s monitoring and other abatement activities at the site are ongoing and will continue until the groundwater meets applicable federal and state standards or until the NMED determines remediation is not required, whichever is earlier. PNM is not able to assess the duration of this project or estimate the impact on its obligations if PNM is required to resume groundwater remediation activities at the site. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of these matters.

EPA’s final coal ash rule, which became effective on October 19, 2015, included a non-hazardous waste determination for coal ash. The rule was promulgated under Subtitle D of RCRA and sets minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments. 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 U.S. and contains a number of provisions related to the CCR rules. Among other things, the WIIN Act allows, but does not require, states to develop and submit CCR permit programs for EPA approval, provides flexibility for states to incorporate EPA’s final rule for CCRs or develop other criteria that are at least as protective as EPA’s final rule, and requires EPA to approve state permit programs within 180 days of submission by the state. Because states are not required to implement their own CCR permit programs, EPA will implement the permit program in states that choose not to implement a program, subject to Congressional funding. Until permit programs are in effect, EPA has authority to directly enforce the CCR rule. For facilities located within the boundaries of Native American reservations, such as the Navajo Nation where Four Corners is located, EPA is required to develop a federal permit program regardless of appropriated funds. There is no timeline for establishing either state or federal permitting programs.

On July 30, 2018, EPA published a rule that constitutes “Phase One, Part One” of its ongoing reconsideration and revision of the April 17, 2015 coal ash rule. The final rule includes two types of revisions. The first revision extended the deadline to allow EGUs with unlined impoundments or that fail to meet the uppermost aquifer requirement to continue to receive coal ash until October 31, 2020. The rule also authorized a “Participating State Director” or EPA to approve suspension of groundwater monitoring and to issue certifications related to the location restrictions, design criteria, groundwater monitoring, remedy selection and implementation. The revisions also modify groundwater protection standards for certain constituents, which include cobalt, molybdenum, lithium, and lead without a maximum contamination level. EPA intends to issue multiple proposed rulemakings with a final rule expected in 2020 that will include the following: (1) deadlines for unlined surface impoundments to cease receiving waste; (2) a “Phase Two” rule to address amendments to the national minimum criteria; and (3) rulemaking for alternative demonstration for unlined surface impoundments with a request for comment on inclusion of legacy units. On August 14, 2019, the “Phase Two” proposed rule was published in the Federal Register with comments due on October 15, 2019. This rule proposes revisions to reporting and accessibility to public information, the definition of CCR piles, the definition of beneficial use, and the requirements for management of CCR piles. A final rule is expected in mid to late 2020. On November 4, 2019, EPA proposed a change to the CCR rule that, subject to EPA authorization for each facility, would allow facilities that have committed to cease burning coal in the near-term to qualify for alternative closure. This would allow CCR disposal units at such plants to continue operating even though they would otherwise have been subject to forced closure. On December 2, 2019, EPA published the proposed Part A CCR rule requiring a new date of August 31, 2020 for companies to initiate closure of unlined CCR impoundments and changing the classification of compacted soil-lined or clay-lined surface impoundments from “lined” to “unlined”. Comments were due January 31, 2020. On December 19, 2019, EPA released a proposed rule establishing a federal permitting program for the handling of CCR within the boundaries of Native American reservations and in states without their own federally authorized state programs. Permits for units within the boundaries of Native American reservations would be due 18 months after the effective date of the rule. Once published in the Federal Register, there will be a 60-day comment period. The final rule is expected in mid to late 2020. PNM cannot predict the outcome of EPA’s rule making activity or the outcome of any related litigation, and whether or how such a ruling would affect operations at Four Corners.

The CCR 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 and the determination by EPA that CCRs are non-hazardous. PNM cannot predict the outcome of OSM’s proposed rulemaking regarding CCR regulation, including mine placement of CCRs, or whether OSM’s actions will have a material impact on PNM’s operations, financial position, or cash flows. Based upon the requirements of the final rule, PNM conducted a CCR 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 would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all CCR costs for retail jurisdictional assets that are ultimately incurred. PNM does not expect the rule to have a material impact on operations, financial position, or cash flows.

As indicated above, CCRs at Four Corners are currently disposed of in ash ponds and dry storage areas. The CCR rule requires ongoing, phased groundwater monitoring. Utilities that own or operate CCR disposal units, such as those at Four Corners were required to collect sufficient groundwater sampling data to initiate a detection monitoring program. Four Corners completed the analysis for its CCR disposal units, which identified several units that will need corrective action or will need to cease operations and initiate closure by August 31, 2020. As part of this assessment, Four Corners will continue to gather additional groundwater data and perform remedial evaluations. At this time, PNM does not anticipate its share of the cost to complete these corrective actions, to close the CCR disposal units, or to gather and perform remedial evaluations on groundwater at Four Corners will have a significant impact on its operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The coal requirements for SJGS are supplied by WSJ LLC. WSJ LLC holds certain federal, state, and private coal leases. Through January 31, 2016, SJCC, the former San Juan mine owner, 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 has prepaid the current San Juan mine owner and operator, WSJ LLC, for certain coal mined but not yet delivered to the plant site. At both December 31, 2019 and 2018, prepayments for coal, which are included in other current assets, amounted to $26.3 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 former 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 CCR 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 entered into a new coal supply agreement (the “SJGS CSA”), pursuant to which Westmoreland, through its indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary SJCC, agreed to supply all of the coal requirements of SJGS through June 30, 2022. PNM and Westmoreland also entered into agreements under which CCR disposal and mine reclamation services for SJGS would be provided. As discussed in Note 10, with the closing of the sale of the assets of SJCC on March 15, 2019, WSJ LLC assumed the rights and obligations of SJCC under the SJGS CSA and the agreements for CCR disposal and mine reclamation services.

Pricing under the SJGS CSA is primarily fixed, with adjustments to reflect changes in general inflation. The pricing structure takes into account that WSJ LLC has been paid for coal mined but not delivered, as discussed above. PNM had the option to extend the SJGS CSA, subject to negotiation of the term of the extension and compensation to the miner. In 2018, PNM, Los Alamos, UAMPS, and Tucson provided notice of their intent to exit SJGS in 2022 and Farmington gave notice that it wishes to continue SJGS operations and to extend the terms of both agreements. On November 30, 2018, PNM provided notice to Westmoreland that PNM does not intend to extend the term of the SJGS CSA or to negotiate a new coal supply agreement for SJGS, which will result in the current agreement expiring on its own terms on June 30, 2022. See additional discussion of PNM’s December 2018 Compliance Filing above and its SJGS Abandonment Application in Note 17.

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 is 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 subsidiary of Westmoreland, to finance WSJ’s purchase of the stock of SJCC (including an insignificant affiliate) under the Stock Purchase Agreement. NM Capital provided the $125.0 million financing to WSJ by first entering into a $125.0 million term loan agreement (the “BTMU Term Loan”) with BTMU, as lender and administrative agent. The BTMU Term Loan agreement became effective as of February 1, 2016, had a maturity date of February 1, 2021, and bore interest at a rate based on LIBOR plus a customary spread. In connection with the BTMU Term Loan, PNMR, as parent company of NM Capital, guaranteed NM Capital’s obligations to BTMU.

The Westmoreland Loan was a $125.0 million loan agreement among NM Capital, as lender, WSJ, as borrower, and SJCC and its affiliate, as guarantors. The Westmoreland Loan became effective as of February 1, 2016 and had a maturity date of February 1, 2021. The interest rate on the Westmoreland Loan escalated over time and was 9.25% plus LIBOR for the period from February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018 and 12.25% plus LIBOR beginning February 1, 2018. On May 22, 2018, the full principal outstanding under the Westmoreland Loan of $50.1 million was repaid. NM Capital used a portion of the proceeds to repay all remaining principal of $43.0 million owed under the BTMU Term Loan. These payments effectively terminated the loan agreements. In addition, PNMR’s guarantee of NM Capital’s obligations was also effectively terminated.

The SJGS RA required PNM to complete an update to the reclamation cost estimate after the December 31, 2017 shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3. This reclamation cost estimate was completed in October 2018 and assumed continuation of mining operations through 2053, the life of SJGS currently approved by the NMPRC. The study indicated a decrease in reclamation costs primarily driven by lower inflationary factors used to determine the estimated future cost of reclamation activities. PNM recorded its $2.5 million share of this decrease in September 2018, which is reflected in regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. As discussed above, PNM submitted the December 2018 Compliance Filing to the NMPRC indicating that, consistent with the conclusions reached in PNM’s 2017 IRP, PNM expects to retire its share of SJGS after the current SJGS CSA expires in mid-2022. PNM determined that events and circumstances regarding SJGS, including the December 2018 Compliance Filing, indicated that it is more likely than not that PNM’s share of SJGS will be retired in 2022. As a result, in December 2018 PNM again remeasured its liability for coal mine reclamation for the mine that serves SJGS to reflect that reclamation activities may occur beginning in 2022, rather than in 2053 as previously anticipated. This estimate resulted in

an increase in overall reclamation costs due to an increase in the amount of fill dirt required to remediate the mine areas and the timing of activities necessary to reclaim the mine that serves SJGS. This remeasurement increased PNM’s liability for coal mine reclamation as of December 31, 2018 by $39.2 million, which includes both the underground and surface mines that serve SJGS. PNM recovers from retail customers reclamation costs associated with the underground mine. However, the NMPRC has capped the amount that can be collected from retail customers for final reclamation of the surface mines at $100.0 million. As a result, PNM recorded $9.4 million of the increase in the liability at December 31, 2018 related to the underground mine in regulatory assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and recorded the remaining $29.8 million associated with the surface mine as regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. PNM’s estimate of the costs necessary to reclaim the mine that serves SJGS is subject to many assumptions, including the timing of reclamation, generally accepted practices at the time reclamation activities occur, and then current inflation and discount rates. In addition, PNM may be exposed to additional loss if the cost of reclamation activities is not approved by the NMPRC. See additional discussion of PNM’s SJGS Abandonment Application in Note 17.

Under the terms of the SJGS CSA, PNM and the other SJGS owners are obligated to compensate WSJ LLC 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 WSJ LLC for post-term reclamation obligations. As part of the restructuring of SJGS ownership (see SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters above), the SJGS owners negotiated the terms of an amended agreement to fund post-term reclamation obligations under the CSA. The trust funds agreement requires each owner to enter into an individual trust agreement with a financial institution as trustee, create an irrevocable reclamation trust, and periodically deposit funds into the reclamation trust for the owner’s share of the mine reclamation obligation. Deposits, which are based on funding curves, must be made on an annual basis. As part of the restructuring of SJGS ownership discussed above, the SJGS participants agreed to adjusted interim trust funding levels. PNM funded $5.5 million in 2019, $10.0 million in 2018, and $5.8 million in 2017. Based on PNM’s reclamation trust fund balance at December 31, 2019, the current funding curves indicate PNM’s required contributions to its reclamation trust fund would be $9.7 million in 2020, $10.9 million in 2021, and $11.7 million in 2022.

SJCC, as former owner and operator of San Juan mine, 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. 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.

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 $13.9 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 $13.5 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 $42.1 million, with a maximum annual payment limitation of $6.2 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 $2.8 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.

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.

In 1975, the State of New Mexico filed an action in NM 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. A number of parties subsequently appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. PNM entered its appearance in the appellate case and supported the settlement agreement in the NM District Court. On April 3, 2018, the New Mexico Court of Appeals issued an order affirming the decision of the NM District Court. Several parties filed motions requesting a rehearing with the New Mexico Court of Appeals seeking clarification of the order, which were denied. The State of New Mexico and various other appellants filed a writ of certiorari with the NM Supreme Court. The NM Supreme Court granted the State of New Mexico’s petition and denied the other parties’ requests. The issues regarding the Navajo Nation settlement have been briefed and are awaiting a decision by the NM Supreme Court. Adjudication of non-Indian water rights is ongoing.

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.

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. After extensive challenges to the validity of the ordinance, the utilities filed a writ of certiorari with the NM Supreme Court, which was denied. The utilities and Bernalillo County had reached a standstill agreement whereby the county would not take any enforcement action against the utilities pursuant to the ordinance during the pendency of then pending 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. After court-ordered settlement discussions, PNM and Bernalillo County executed a franchise fee agreement with a term of 15 years. Under the agreement, PNM will pay franchise fees to the county at an amount similar to those paid by PNM in other jurisdictions. PNM will recover the cost of the franchise fees as a direct pass-through to customers located in Bernalillo County. The agreement is subject to approval by the New Mexico Second District Court in Bernalillo County. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

In September 2012, 43 landowners filed a notice of appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) appealing a March 2011 decision of the BIA Regional Director regarding renewal of a right-of-way for a PNM transmission line. The landowners 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 PNM is a rights-of-way grantee 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. The allottees 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. The allottees filed a motion to dismiss their appeal with prejudice, which was granted in April 2014. 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 September 18, 2015 the allottees filed a separate complaint against PNM for federal trespass. 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. Both matters have been consolidated. 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, which was denied. The NM District Court stayed the case 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, which was denied. The underlying litigation continues in the NM District Court. On March 27, 2019, several individual allottees filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of trespass. The Court held a hearing on the motion on June 18, 2019 and took the motion under advisement. Mediation on the matter is ongoing and parties are continuing to discuss a potential settlement. PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters.