XML 83 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Regulatory and Rate Matters

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

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, and proposed that new rates become effective beginning in July 2016. Subsequent to public hearings, 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.

In August 2016, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued a recommended decision (the “August 2016 RD”). The August 2016 RD, among other things, 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. As a result, the August 2016 RD recommended the NMPRC disallow recovery of the entire $163.3 million purchase price for the January 15, 2016 purchases of the assets underlying three leases aggregating 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2, the undepreciated capital improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW

of purchased capacity was leased, rent expense aggregating $18.1 million annually for leases aggregating 114.6 MW of capacity that were extended through January 2023 and 2024 (Note 8), and recovery of the costs of converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT.

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


•	Recovery of annual rent expenses associated with the 114.6 MW of capacity under the extended leases


•	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

On September 30, 2016, PNM filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court regarding the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case. Specifically, PNM appealed the NMPRC’s determination that PNM was imprudent in certain matters in the case, including the NMPRC’s disallowance of the full purchase price of the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW of capacity was leased by PNM, the cost of converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT, and 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. NEE, NM AREA, and ABCWUA filed notices of cross-appeal to PNM’s appeal. The issues appealed by the various cross-appellants included, among other things, the NMPRC allowing PNM to recover any of the costs of the lease extensions for the 114.6 MW of PVNGS Units 1 and 2 and the purchase price for the 64.1 MW in PVNGS Unit 2, the costs incurred under the Four Corners CSA, and the inclusion of the “prepaid pension asset” in rate base.

During the pendency of the appeal, PNM evaluated the consequences of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case and the related appeals to the NM Supreme Court as required under GAAP. These evaluations indicated that it was reasonably possible that PNM would be successful on the issues it was appealing but would not be provided capital costs recovery until the NMPRC acted on a decision of the NM Supreme Court. PNM also evaluated the accounting consequences of the issues being appealed by the cross-appellants and concluded that the issues raised in the cross-appeals did not have substantial merit. In accordance with GAAP, PNM periodically updated its estimate of the amount of time necessary for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues. As a result of those evaluations, through December 31, 2018, PNM recorded accumulated pre-tax impairments of its capital investments subject to the appeal in the amount of $18.4 million, of which $4.0 million was recorded during the year ended December 31, 2018, and $3.1 million was recorded during the year ended December 31, 2017.

On May 16, 2019, the NM Supreme Court issued its decision on the matters that had been appealed in the NM 2015 Rate Case. The NM Supreme Court rejected the matters appealed by the cross-appellants and affirmed the NMPRC’s disallowance of a portion of the purchase price of the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2; the undepreciated costs of capital improvements made during the time the 64.1 MW capacity was leased by PNM; and the costs to install BDT at SJGS Units 1 and 4. The NM Supreme Court’s decision also ruled that the NMPRC’s decision to permanently disallow recovery of future decommissioning costs related to the 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2 and the 114.6 MW of PVNGS Units 1 and 2 deprived PNM of its rights to due process of law and remanded the case to the NMPRC for further proceedings consistent with the court’s findings. On July 17, 2019, the NMPRC heard oral argument from parties in the case on how to best proceed with the NM Supreme Court’s remand. At oral argument, parties presented various positions ranging from re-litigating the value of PVNGS resources determined by the NMPRC and affirmed by the NM Supreme Court to re-affirming the NMPRC’s final order with a single modification to address recovery of future PVNGS decommissioning costs in a future case. On January 8, 2020, the NMPRC issued its order in response to the NM Supreme Court’s remand. The NMPRC reaffirmed its September 2016 order except for the decision to permanently disallow recovery of certain future decommissioning costs related to PVNGS Units 1 and 2. The NMPRC indicated that PNM’s ability to recover these costs will be addressed in a future proceeding and closed the NM 2015 Rate Case docket.

As a result of the NM Supreme Court’s ruling, during the year ended December 31, 2019, PNM recorded pre-tax impairments of $150.6 million, which includes $73.2 million for a portion of the purchase price for 64.1 MW in PVNGS Unit 2, $39.7 million of undepreciated capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW was being leased by PNM, and $37.7 million for BDT on SJGS Units 1 and 4 and is reflected as regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. The impairment was offset by tax impacts of $45.7 million, which are reflected as income taxes on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings.

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 were at issue in its then pending appeal to the NM Supreme Court. PNM’s original application used a FTY beginning January 1, 2018 and requested an increase in base non-fuel revenues of $99.2 million based on a ROE of 10.125%. The primary drivers of PNM’s revenue deficiency included implementation of modifications to PNM’s resource portfolio, which were approved by the NMPRC in December 2015 as part of the SJGS regional haze compliance plan, infrastructure investments, including environmental upgrades at Four Corners, declines in forecasted energy sales due to successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors, and updates to FERC/retail jurisdictional allocations.

After extensive settlement negotiations and public proceedings, the NMPRC issued a Revised Order Partially Adopting Certification of Stipulation dated January 10, 2018 (the “Revised Order”). The key terms of the Revised Order include:


•	An increase in base non-fuel revenues totaling $10.3 million, which includes a reduction to reflect the impact of the decrease in the federal corporate income tax rate and updates to PNM’s cost of debt (aggregating an estimated $47.6 million annually)


•	A ROE of 9.575%


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


•	Disallowing PNM’s ability to collect an equity return on certain investments aggregating $148.1 million at Four Corners, but allowing recovery 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


•	A requirement to consider the prudency of PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners in PNM’s next general rate case filing

In accordance with the settlement agreement and the NMPRC’s final order, 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.

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 several questions establishing and monitoring utilities’ ROEs, the recoverability of regulatory assets, including rate case costs, and whether parties should have access to software used by utilities to support their positions. To date, no agreement has been reached. PNM is not able to predict the potential outcome of this matter but does not anticipate the NMPRC will take any further action.

Renewable Portfolio Standard

Prior to the enactment of the ETA, the REA established 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. As discussed in Note 16, the ETA was enacted on June 14, 2019. 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 removes diversity requirements and certain customer caps and exemptions relating to the application of the RPS under the REA.

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. The ETA sets a RCT of $60 per MWh using an average annual levelized resource cost basis. 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 that were placed in commercial operation in 2019


•	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 with a current capacity of 15 MW


•	Solar distributed generation, aggregating 127.6 MW at December 31, 2019, 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 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. 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 PNM-owned 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. 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 PNM-owned solar facilities. 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, NM AREA filed an appeal with the NM Supreme Court objecting to the fuel allocation methodology and requested a partial stay of the NMPRC order, which was denied. NEE subsequently filed a motion to intervene and cross-appeal objecting to the approval of the 50 MW of new PNM-owned solar facilities. On July 5, 2019, the NM Supreme Court approved a motion filed by NM AREA to dismiss its appeal. On August 8, 2019, the NM Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming the NMPRC’s approval of PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan and denying NEE’s cross appeal. This matter is now concluded.

On June 1, 2018, PNM filed its 2019 renewable energy procurement plan. The plan met RPS and diversity requirements for 2019 and 2020 using resources already approved by the NMPRC and did not propose any significant new procurements. PNM projected the plan would be within the RCT in 2019 and will slightly exceed the current RCT in 2020. The NMPRC approved PNM’s 2019 renewable energy procurement plan on November 28, 2018.

On June 3, 2019, PNM filed its 2020 renewable energy procurement plan. The plan requests approval of a 20-year PPA to purchase 140 MW of renewable energy and RECs from the La Joya Wind Facility (“La Joya Wind”), which is expected to be operational by December 31, 2020. PNM intends to utilize the BB2 line to deliver power from the PPA. See additional discussion below under Application for a New 345-kV Transmission Line. PNM’s 2020 renewable energy procurement plan requests a variance from the RPS for 2020 and proposes the shortfall be met with excess RECs that will be available under the La Joya Wind PPA in 2021. PNM also submitted proposed adjustments to the current FPPAC methodology for non-renewable fuel allocations to reflect the ETA’s removal of certain customer cost caps associated with the RPS and requested that the fuel clause year be reset to correspond to the January 1 reset date under the renewable energy rider. On July 17, 2019, PNM filed a corrected reconciliation of 2019 and estimated 2020 customer bill impacts that demonstrated the effect of removing certain customer caps and exemptions under the requirements of the ETA. The Hearing Examiner issued a response requiring PNM to address why its application should not be dismissed, or alternatively, proposing an extended procedural schedule. PNM’s response proposed the application not be dismissed, that a corrected public notice be issued, and that the procedural schedule be extended by 60 days. On July 30, 2019, the Hearing Examiner issued a revised procedural order that extended the statutory review period through January 29, 2020. On September 17, 2019, the Hearing Examiner issued an order requiring PNM to provide supplemental briefing supporting the applicability of the ETA to PNM’s 2020 renewable energy procurement plan and, in the event the ETA should not apply, support PNM’s position that the NMPRC has the authority to approve PNM’s requested variance. PNM filed its brief on September 24, 2019, supporting the applicability of the ETA and the NMPRC’s authority to grant the requested variance. On October 4, 2019, the Hearing Examiner issued an order requiring PNM to provide RPS calculations using rules and regulations existing before the ETA. PNM filed its rebuttal testimony on October 15, 2019, which included the calculations required by the Hearing Examiner. Public hearings were held on October 24 and 25, 2019. On December 2, 2019, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision in the case recommending approval of PNM’s 2020 renewable energy procurement plan including the 140 MW wind PPA and indicating that the recently enacted ETA could be applied to the case even though PNM’s filing was made

prior to the ETA’s effective date. On January 29, 2020, the NMPRC accepted the Hearing Examiners recommended decision and approved PNM’s 2020 renewable energy procurement plan.

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 $52.0 million, $41.4 million, and $45.2 million in 2019, 2018, and 2017. 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 2019 renewable energy procurement plan became effective on January 1, 2019. In its 2020 renewable energy procurement plan case, which was approved by the NMPRC on January 29, 2020, PNM proposed to collect $58.9 million.

Under the renewable rider, if PNM’s earned rate of return on jurisdictional equity in a calendar year, adjusted for 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. PNM did not exceed such limitation in 2018 and does not expect to exceed the limitation in 2019.

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. During the 2019 New Mexico legislative session, the EUEA was amended to, among other things, include a decoupling mechanism for disincentives, preclude a reduction to a utility’s ROE based on approval of disincentive or incentive mechanisms, and to establish savings targets for the period 2021 through 2025.

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 was $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 was 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 recommended 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.

In 2019, PNM submitted the required filing to address incentives to be earned in 2020. PNM’s proposed incentive mechanism is similar to that approved for 2018 and 2019 with minor modifications to reflect input from interested parties. The proposed incentive mechanism includes a base incentive of 7.1% of program costs, or approximately $1.8 million, based on savings of 59 GWh in 2020 with a sliding scale that provides for additional incentive if savings exceed 68 GWh. No hearings were considered necessary and PNM’s 2020 energy efficiency rider reflecting the 2020 incentive became effective beginning December 30, 2019.

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 AMI pilot project.

Petition for Energy Efficiency Disincentive

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. As discussed above, the ETA amended the EUEA to, among other things, include a decoupling mechanism for disincentives. On May 6, 2019, PNM submitted a request to the NMPRC to dismiss this matter. PNM will propose a mechanism to address disincentives in a future general rate case filing. The NMPRC approved PNM’s request to dismiss the matter on June 12, 2019, concluding 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. On July 31, 2014, several parties requested the NMPRC to not accept the 2014 IRP as compliant with NMPRC rules 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 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. On May 4, 2016, the NMPRC issued a 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 is not able to predict the potential outcome of this matter but does not anticipate the NMPRC will take any further action.

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 included, among other things, that retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 and existing ownership in Four Corners in 2031 would provide long-term cost savings for PNM’s customers and that the best mix of new resources to replace the retired coal generation would include solar energy and flexible natural gas-fired peaking capacity as well as energy storage, if the economics support it, and wind energy provided additional transmission capacity becomes available. The 2017 IRP also indicated that PNM should retain the currently leased capacity in PVNGS. See additional discussion of PNM’s leased capacity in PVNGS below and in Note 8.

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 December 19, 2018, after public hearings and consideration of the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations, the NMPRC issued a final order accepting PNM’s 2017 IRP as compliant with applicable statute and NMPRC rules. 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. 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, which was deemed denied. 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. On March 11, 2019, PNM filed its response with the NM Supreme Court stating that the NMPRC has already considered and, by operation of law, denied NEE’s motion for reconsideration. On May 10, 2019, the appellants, excluding NEE, filed a motion with the NM Supreme Court to dismiss their appeal, which was supported by PNM. On May 31, 2019, the NM Supreme Court denied NEE’s request to remand the proceeding to the NMPRC and ordered NEE to respond to the motion to dismiss the appeal. On June 4, 2019, NEE responded that it did not oppose the appellants’ request to dismiss their appeal. On July 26, 2019, the NM Supreme Court granted the parties’ motions to dismiss the appeal. On September 19, 2019, NEE filed a second motion requesting the NMPRC reconsider its acceptance of PNM’s 2017 IRP, which was deemed denied. This matter is now concluded.

As discussed below, on July 1, 2019, PNM submitted its SJGS Abandonment Application with the NMPRC requesting approval to retire SJGS in 2022, for replacement resources, and for issuance of securitized financing under the ETA. Many of the assumptions and findings included in PNM’s July 1, 2019 filing were consistent with those identified in PNM’s 2017 IRP. The SJGS Abandonment Application and the 2017 IRP are not a final determinations of PNM’s future generation portfolio. PNM will also 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 will be required.

2020 IRP

In the third quarter of 2019, PNM initiated its 2020 IRP process which will cover the 20-year planning period from 2019 through 2039. Consistent with historical practice, PNM has provided notice to various interested parties and has hosted a series of public advisory presentations. NMPRC rules require PNM to file its 2020 IRP in July 2020. PNM will continue to seek input from interested parties as a part of this process. PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

SJGS Abandonment Application

On July 1, 2019, PNM filed a Consolidated Application for the Abandonment and Replacement of SJGS and Related Securitized Financing Pursuant to the ETA (the “SJGS Abandonment Application”). The SJGS Abandonment Application seeks NMPRC approval to retire PNM’s share of SJGS after the existing coal supply and participation agreements end in June 2022, for approval of replacement resources, and for the issuance of “energy transition bonds,” as provided by the ETA. PNM’s application proposes several replacement resource scenarios including PNM’s recommended replacement scenario, which would provide cost savings to customers compared to continued operation of SJGS, preserves system reliability, and is consistent with PNM’s plan to have an emissions-free generation portfolio by 2040. This plan would provide PNM authority to construct and own a 280 MW natural gas-fired peaking plant, to be located on the existing SJGS facility site, and 70 MW of battery storage facilities. In addition, PNM’s recommended replacement resource scenario would allow PNM to execute PPAs to procure renewable energy from a total of 350 MW of solar-PV generating facilities and for energy from a total of 60 MW of battery storage facilities. PNM’s application included three other replacement resource scenarios that would place a greater amount of resources in the San Juan area, or result in no new fossil-fueled generating facilities, or no battery storage facilities being added to PNM’s portfolio. When compared to PNM’s recommended replacement resource scenario, the three alternative resource

scenarios are expected to result in increased costs to customers and the two alternative resource scenarios that result in no new fossil-fueled generating facilities are expected to provide lower system reliability. The SJGS Abandonment Application includes a request to issue approximately $361 million of energy transition bonds (the “Securitized Bonds”). PNM’s request for the issuance of Securitized Bonds includes approximately $283 million of forecasted undepreciated investments in SJGS at June 30, 2020, an estimated $28.6 million for plant decommissioning and coal mine reclamation costs, approximately $9.6 million in upfront financing costs, and approximately $20.0 million for job training and severance costs for affected employees. Proceeds from the Securitization Bonds would also be used to fund approximately $19.8 million for economic development in the four corners area.

The NM Supreme Court granted a request by PNM to stay a January 30, 2019 NMPRC order requiring PNM to file an abandonment application for SJGS by March 1, 2019. 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. See Note 16. On July 10, 2019, the NMPRC issued an order requiring the SJGS Abandonment Application be considered in two proceedings: one addressing SJGS abandonment and related financing, and the other addressing replacement resources. The NMPRC indicated that PNM’s July 1, 2019 filing is responsive to the January 30, 2019 order but did not definitively indicate if the abandonment and financing proceedings will be evaluated under the requirements of the ETA. The NMPRC’s July 10, 2019 order also extended the deadline to issue the abandonment and financing order to nine months and to issue the replacement resources order to 15 months. On July 22, 2019, Western Resource Advocates filed a motion for clarification, reconsideration, and request for oral argument with the NMPRC. The motion requested the NMPRC clarify whether it intends to evaluate the abandonment and financing proceeding under the requirements of the ETA and, in the event the abandonment and financing proceeding will not be evaluated under the ETA, to reconsider its decision and provide parties an opportunity to present oral argument on the matter. The NMPRC chair responded on July 24, 2019, indicating that the Hearing Examiners assigned to the proceeding would address the issue of law applicable to the approvals sought by PNM in the scheduling orders. On July 25, 2019, the Hearing Examiners issued procedural orders that set public hearings on SJGS abandonment and related financing to begin on December 10, 2019, on PNM’s proposed PPA replacement resources to begin on December 2, 2019, and on PNM-owned replacement resources to begin on March 2, 2020. These procedural orders were subsequently amended to allow public hearings for both the PPA and PNM-owned replacement resources to begin in January 2020. The procedural orders also required PNM to file legal brief by August 23, 2019 regarding the extent to which the state constitution might prevent the ETA from applying to the issues in each proceeding, that parties file responses to PNM’s legal briefs by October 18, 2019, and that parties may file testimony on the merits of their claims regarding the SJGS abandonment and replacement resources if the ETA is ultimately determined to not apply to PNM’s application. On July 29, 2019, Western Resource Advocates filed a motion for interlocutory appeal of the July 24, 2019 order indicating that the procedural order would not provide parties adequate time to determine the applicability of the ETA and requesting an expedited decision from the NMPRC stating their intent to review the proceedings under the requirements of the ETA or under prior law. On August 21, 2019, the NMPRC denied the motion for interlocutory appeal. On August 23, 2019, PNM filed legal briefing in support of the applicability of the ETA to all aspects of the consolidated application. On October 18, 2019, various parties filed legal briefings with a range of positions that support or oppose the applicability of the ETA, as well as testimony regarding the SJGS abandonment and financing proceedings. Hearings on the abandonment and securitized financing proceedings were held in December 2019 and hearings on replacement resources were held in January 2020.

On August 26, 2019, NEE and other advocacy groups filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus requesting the NM Supreme Court stay the SJGS abandonment and financing proceedings, declare the ETA inapplicable to such proceedings and declare certain provisions of the ETA unconstitutional because they limit the regulatory oversight responsibilities of the NMPRC. The petition was dismissed for failure to comply with the appellate rules and an amended petition was filed on September 18, 2019. On August 30, 2019, PNM and other parties filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting the NM Supreme Court clarify that the reason underlying its June 2019 decision denying the stay was due to the passage of the ETA and to clarify that the ETA applies to any application filed after the stay had been lifted. In early October 2019, the NM Supreme Court denied both PNM’s and NEE’s petitions for writ of mandamus without discussion.

On December 9, 2019, the Governor of the State of New Mexico, the President of the Navajo Nation, and several New Mexico state senators and representatives filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus requesting the NM Supreme Court require the NMPRC to comply with its constitutional duties and apply the ETA to every aspect of PNM’s SJGS Abandonment Application. The petition indicated the NMPRC’s January 2019 order to initiate SJGS abandonment proceedings was intended to create a pending case predating the effectiveness of the ETA, that irreversible harm to the state of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation has resulted from the NMPRC’s refusal to establish the applicability of the ETA, and that the NMPRC’s refusal to review the SJGS abandonment and financing proceedings under the ETA violates the authority of the legislature and the separation of powers doctrine. On December 16, 2019, the NM Supreme Court issued an order requiring responses by January 3, 2020. PNM and other parties filed in support of the petition and NEE submitted a filing indicating the petition should be denied. On January 3, 2020, the NMPRC filed its response stating that, among other things, the NMPRC’s order initiating SJGS abandonment proceedings was made pursuant to the NMPRC’s December 2015 order authorizing the abandonment of SJGS Units 2 and 3 by

December 2017, which predates the ETA and required PNM to submit a filing regarding the future of SJGS by December 31, 2018, and that the NMPRC has an obligation to provide parties in the case due process regarding the applicability of the ETA to PNM’s application. In January 2020, the NM Supreme Court denied NEE’s and other parties petitions, granted PNM’s motion to intervene, and scheduled oral arguments to be presented by the NMPRC and PNM. On January 29, 2020, and after oral argument, the NM Supreme Court issued a ruling requiring the NMPRC apply the ETA to all aspects of PNM’s SJGS Abandonment Application, indicating any previous NMPRC orders inconsistent with their ruling should be vacated, and denying parties’ request for stay.

On February 21, 2020, the Hearing Examiners issued two recommended decisions recommending approval of PNM’s proposed abandonment of SJGS, subject to approval of the separate replacement resources proceeding, and approval of PNM’s proposed financing order to issue Securitized Bonds. The Hearing Examiners recommended that PNM be authorized to abandon SJGS by June 30, 2022, and to record regulatory assets for certain other abandonment costs that are not specifically addressed under the provisions of the ETA. These additional costs would be subject to review in a future proceeding. The Hearing Examiners also recommended PNM be authorized to issue Securitized Bonds of up to $361 million and establish a rate rider to collect non-bypassable customer charges for repayment of the bonds and be subject to bi-annual adjustments (the “Energy Transition Charge”). The Hearing Examiners recommended an interim rate rider adjustment upon the start date of the Energy Transition Charge to provide immediate credits to customers for the full value of PNM’s revenue requirement related to SJGS until those reductions are reflected in base rates. In addition, the Hearing Examiners recommended PNM be granted authority to establish regulatory assets to recover costs that PNM will pay prior to the issuance of the Securitized Bonds, including costs associated with the bond issuances as well as for severances, job training, and economic development costs. Exceptions to the recommended decisions are due March 4, 2020 and responses to exceptions are due March 6, 2020. The Hearing Examiners also found that the statutory deadline for action by the Commission is April 1, 2020.

The financial impact of an early retirement of SJGS and the NMPRC approval process are influenced by many factors outside of PNM’s control, including the economic impact of a potential SJGS abandonment on the area surrounding the plant and the related mine, as well as the overall political and economic conditions of New Mexico. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Joint Petition to Investigate PNM’s Option to Purchase Assets Underlying Certain Leases in PVNGS

On April 22, 2019, NEE and other parties, which consist primarily of environmental not-for-profit organizations, filed a joint petition for expedited investigation with the NMPRC. The joint petition requested the NMPRC open an investigation regarding PNM’s option to purchase the assets underlying the PVNGS Unit 1 and 2 leases that will expire in January 2023 and 2024. Various parties filed to participate in the request. On May 8, 2019, the NMPRC issued an order requiring a response from both PNM and NMPRC staff. PNM filed responses indicating, among other things, that the joint petition should be denied, and that PNM has not yet made a decision to purchase or return the assets underlying the leases that expire in January 2023 and 2024. On September 16, 2019, NEE and the other parties filed a motion reiterating their initial petition and seeking the appointment of a hearing examiner to preside over the requested proceeding. On September 30, 2019, PNM filed its response in opposition stating that PNM had previously refuted NEE’s arguments and that there is no need for a hearing examiner to be assigned to this matter. On January 3, 2020, PNM filed notice with the NMPRC of 60-day waivers of the deadline to provide notice to purchase or return the assets underlying the PVNGS Unit 1 leases. The deadline for PNM to provide irrevocable notice of its intent to purchase or return these interests is now March 16, 2020. On January 8, 2020, the NMPRC issued an order denying the petition for investigation. PNM has committed to provide the NMPRC with timely updates on any decisions related to these interests and will file any necessary requests for approval associated with its decision. This matter is now completed.

Cost Recovery Related to Joining the EIM

The California Independent System Operator (“CAISO”) 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, to recover an estimated $20.9 million of initial capital investments and authorization 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 proposed the benefits of participating

in the EIM be credited to retail customers through PNM’s existing FPPAC and that PNM would seek recovery of its costs in a future proceeding. 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, which was subsequently challenged by several parties. On February 6, 2019, the NMPRC issued an order granting rehearing and vacating the December 19, 2018 order. On March 18, 2019, the Hearing Examiner issued an updated recommended decision recommending approval of the establishment of a regulatory asset but deferring certain rate making issues, including but not limited to issues related to implementation and ongoing EIM costs and savings, the prudence and reasonableness of costs to be included in the regulatory asset, and the period over which costs would be charged to customers until PNM’s next general rate case filing, which was approved by the NMPRC. PNM and other parties filed a joint motion requesting the NMPRC clarify that the quarterly benefits reports prepared by CAISO be used to determine the benefits of participating in the EIM, as well as to support the prudence of costs incurred to join the EIM. On April 24, 2019, the NMPRC issued an order granting the joint motion for clarification and indicating the CAISO quarterly benefits reports may be used in a future rate case. PNM anticipates it will begin participating in the EIM in April 2021.

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 that PNM’s 2021 energy efficiency plan application, to be filed in 2020, should include a proposal for an AMI pilot project.

Facebook, Inc. Data Center Project

On August 17, 2016, the NMPRC approved a PNM application in connection with services to be provided to Facebook, Inc. for a data center being constructed in PNM’s service area. The application included:


•	Two new electric service rates


•	A PPA under which PNM would purchase renewable energy from an affiliate of PNMR


•	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. The cost of renewable energy procured 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. As of December 31, 2019, PNM is procuring energy from 80 MW of solar-PV capacity from NMRD, a 50% equity method investee of PNMR Development. See additional discussion of NMRD in Note 1.

In late 2017, PNM obtained NMPRC approval to enter into additional 25-year PPAs to purchase renewable energy and RECs to be used by PNM to supply renewable energy to the data center. These PPAs include the purchase of the power and RECs from:


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


•	A 166 MW portion of the La Joya Wind Facility, 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


•	Two 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. The first 50 MW of these facilities began commercial operation in December 2019 and the remaining capacity is expected to begin commercial operation in June 2020.

The two PPAs aggregating approximately 100 MW of capacity were subject to FERC approval, which was granted on August 1, 2019.

PNM Solar Direct

On May 31, 2019, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for approval of a program under which qualified governmental and large commercial customers could participate in a voluntary renewable energy procurement program. PNM proposes to recover costs of the program directly from subscribing customers through a rate rider. If approved by the NMPRC, PNM would procure renewable energy from 50 MW of solar-PV facilities under a 15-year PPA. PNM had fully subscribed the entire output of the 50 MW facilities at the time of the filing. Hearings on the application concluded on January 9, 2020. On February 14, 2020, PNM and several other parties filed a joint proposed recommended decision addressing the Hearing Examiner’s questions in the filing and recommending the NMPRC approve PNM’s application. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Application for a New 345-kV Transmission Line

On August 10, 2018, PNM filed an application seeking NMPRC approval of a CCN to construct and operate a 345-kV transmission line and associated facilities (the “BB2 Line”), and to determine the rate making treatment to apply to the BB2 line and related rights-of-way. In the application, PNM states that the BB2 line would run adjacent to one of PNM’s existing transmission lines and is necessary to serve additional renewable generating resources to be located in eastern New Mexico. PNM’s use of the BB2 line would benefit all customers and would include delivery of approximately 166 MW of renewable energy and RECs under a PPA, which had previously been approved by the NMPRC, from La Joya Wind and 140 MW from La Joya Wind that PNM included in PNM’s 2020 renewable energy procurement plan. PNM’s application requested that the NMPRC apply standard ratemaking treatment to the estimated $85 million cost of the project resulting in a jurisdictional allocation of costs to all of PNM’s transmission and retail customers. NMPRC staff supported PNM’s proposed ratemaking treatment of the BB2 project and indicated that the capacity and energy of the La Joya Wind PPA and related network upgrades to PNM’s transmission system would benefit all of PNM’s customers. On March 11, 2019, the Hearing Examiner assigned to the application issued a recommended decision recommending approval of the CCN and related rights-of-way but recommending the NMPRC deny PNM’s request to allocate a portion of cost of the BB2 Line to retail customers. The Hearing Examiner’s recommendation indicated the costs not recovered from retail customers be directly reimbursed to PNM by Facebook, Inc. As a result, Facebook, Inc. would be responsible for approximately 46%, or $39.0 million, of the estimated cost of the project. On March 20, 2019, PNM filed exceptions to the recommended decision and requested oral argument. In its filing, PNM refuted the proposed finding that the BB2 Line is not part of PNM’s overall transmission system, opposed the recommendation that approximately 46% of the estimated cost of the project be directly assigned to Facebook, Inc. and presented legal arguments in support of PNM’s originally proposed ratemaking treatment. On April 16, 2019, the NMPRC issued an order approving the Hearing Examiner’s recommended decision, including the requirement that PNM be directly reimbursed by Facebook, Inc. In late April 2019, PNM and other parties submitted filings with the NMPRC requesting rehearing and seeking reconsideration of the NMPRC’s decision to deny standard ratemaking treatment of the cost of the BB2 Line and associated facilities, which were denied. On May 21, 2019, PNM filed a motion requesting the NMPRC reopen the proceeding to admit new evidence of the benefits of the BB2 Line to retail customers and to modify the final order. On June 12, 2019, the NMPRC issued an updated final order but denied PNM’s motion to reopen the proceedings. The updated final order grants the CCN but defers rate making treatment to a future rate case. This matter is now concluded.

Western Spirit Line

On May 1, 2019, PNM, the New Mexico Renewable Energy Transmission Authority (“RETA”), a New Mexico state authority, and Western Spirit Transmission LLC (“Western Spirit”), an affiliate of Pattern Energy Group, Inc., entered into agreements for the construction of a transmission line to transmit power generated from wind facilities to be owned by Pattern Wind New Mexico, LLC (“Pattern Wind”), an affiliate of Western Spirit and Pattern Development. As a part of the arrangement, the parties executed a Build Transfer Agreement that would allow PNM to purchase the approximately 165-mile 345-kV transmission line and associated facilities (the “Western Spirit Line”). The Western Spirit Line will be developed and constructed by RETA and Western Spirit LLC and sold to PNM upon its commercial operation date. The Build Transfer Agreement contains a number of customary representations and warranties and indemnification provisions as well as closing conditions, including regulatory and third-party approvals, and if necessary, anti-trust review under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. The Build Transfer Agreement also includes termination provisions that can be exercised under certain circumstances, including failure of the developer to achieve project milestones or to achieve commercial operation by specified dates, and failure of an affiliate of Pattern Wind to provide adequate credit support prior to closing. PNM estimates the net cost of the project to be approximately $285 million, including an estimated $75 million that Pattern Wind has chosen to self-fund under the agreement.

On May 10, 2019, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC requesting that the NMPRC determine that it is not unlawful or inconsistent with the public interest for PNM to purchase the Western Spirit Line and requesting the NMPRC rule by November 6, 2019. Hearings were held on August 13, 2019. On September 11, 2019, the Hearing Examiner assigned to the application issued a recommended decision that would allow PNM to purchase the Western Spirit Line, and indicating that PNM’s proposal satisfies the NMPRC’s acquisition standards and that no CCN is required until such time that PNM seeks recovery for costs associated with the line from retail rate payers. On October 2, 2019, the NMPRC approved the recommended decision with limited modifications.

PNM also has entered into Transmission Service Agreements and other ancillary agreements (“TSAs”) with Pattern Wind for firm transmission service. The TSAs use an incremental rate based on the construction and other ongoing costs of the Western Spirit Line, including adjustments for construction costs that Pattern Wind has chosen to self-fund under the agreement. FERC approved PNM’s TSAs with Pattern Wind effective July 9, 2019. On August 8, 2019, FERC approved PNM’s request to purchase the Western Spirit Line.

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, which was approved by the NMPRC.

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, 2019	766.4	$	21.7	693.6	$	21.8
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

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.

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 ROE of 10.5%, a cost of debt of 7.2%, and a capital structure comprised of 50% debt and 50% equity. TNMP’s application included a request to establish new rate riders to recover Hurricane Harvey restoration, rate case, and additional vegetation management costs. The application also included the integration of revenues previously recorded under the AMS rider and collection of other unrecovered AMS investments into base rates. In 2018, TNMP recorded revenues of $20.2 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 PUCT’s final order results in a $10.0 million annual increase to base rates. The key elements of the approved 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. As stated by the settlement agreement, the PUCT’s final order 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 its January 2019 transmission cost of service filing, which was approved by the PUCT in March 2019. In addition, the PUCT’s final order requires TNMP to refund approximately $37.8 million of the regulatory liability recorded at December 31, 2017 related to federal 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; approves TNMP’s request to integrate revenues historically recorded under TNMP’s AMS rider, as well as other unrecovered AMS investments, into base rates; approves TNMP’s request for new depreciation rates; and approves a new rider to recover Hurricane Harvey restoration costs, net of amounts to be refunded to customers resulting from the reduction in the federal income tax rate in 2018. See Notes 13 and 18. The new rider is being charged to customers over a period of approximately three 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, 2017	$	6.0	$	0.8
March 1, 2018	6.0		1.1
March 1, 2019	5.6		0.8

On May 30, 2019, TNMP filed its request to adjust the EECRF to reflect changes in costs for 2020. On August 30, 2019, a unanimous settlement stipulation was filed with the PUCT that would allow TNMP to recover its requested $5.9 million of program costs in 2020, which includes a performance bonus of $0.8 million based on TNMP’s energy efficiency achievements in the 2018 plan year. The PUCT approved the settlement on December 13, 2019.

Recovery of TNMP Rate Case Costs

Recovery of the cost of TNMP’s rate case was moved into separate proceedings to begin after the conclusion of TNMP 2018 Rate Case. TNMP sought recovery of costs incurred through August 2019 in the amount of $3.8 million and proposed these costs be collected from customers over a three-year period. In October 2019, TNMP and other parties to the proceedings filed an unopposed settlement stipulation that reduced TNMP’s cost recovery to $3.3 million and provide for recovery over a period not to exceed two-years beginning on March 1, 2020. On January 16, 2020, the PUCT approved the settlement. As a result of the PUCT’s order, TNMP recorded a pre-tax write-off of $0.5 million as of December 31, 2019, which is reflected as regulatory disallowances on TNMP’s Consolidated Statements of Earnings.

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 14, 2017	$	30.2	$	4.8
September 13, 2017	27.5		4.7
March 27, 2018	32.0		0.6
March 21, 2019	111.8		14.3
September 19, 2019	21.9		3.3

On February 6, 2020, TNMP filed an application to further update its transmission rates, which would increase revenues by $7.8 million annually, based on an increase in rate base of $59.2 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. TNMP has not made a filing to adjust rates for additional investments in distribution assets but plans to submit a distribution rate adjustment filing in April 2020.

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 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 required 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 required 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. In compliance with the PUCT order, during the year ended December 31, 2018, TNMP reduced revenues by $5.4 million, which amount was offset against TNMP’s Hurricane Harvey restoration costs and is being refunded to customers as a component of a new rate rider over a period of approximately three years beginning on January 1, 2019.