XML 36 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Overview 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 12. 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. Additional information concerning commitments and contingencies is contained in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2019 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. Commitments and Contingencies Related to the Environment Nuclear Spent Fuel and Waste Disposal Nuclear power plant operators are required to enter into spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE that require the DOE to accept and dispose of all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes generated by domestic power reactors. Although the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required the DOE to develop a permanent repository for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel by 1998, the DOE announced that it would not be able to open the repository by 1998 and sought to excuse its performance of these requirements. In November 1997, the DC Circuit issued a decision preventing the DOE from excusing its own delay but refused to order the DOE to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel. Based on this decision and the DOE’s delay, a number of utilities, including APS (on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS owners, including PNM), filed damages actions against the DOE in the Court of Federal Claims. The lawsuits filed by APS alleged that damages were incurred due to DOE’s continuing failure to remove spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste from PVNGS. In August 2014, APS and 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. In July 2020, APS accepted the DOE's extension of the settlement agreement for recovery of costs incurred through December 31, 2022. PNM estimates that it will incur approximately $59.6 million (in 2019 dollars) for its share of the costs related to the on-site interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at PVNGS during the term of the operating licenses. PNM accrues these costs as a component of fuel expense as the nuclear fuel is consumed. At June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, PNM had a liability for interim storage costs of $13.0 million and $12.7 million, which is included in other deferred credits. 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. The Clean Air Act Regional Haze In 1999, EPA developed a regional haze program and regional haze rules under the CAA. The rule directs each of the 50 states to address regional haze. Pursuant to the CAA, states have the primary role to regulate visibility requirements by promulgating SIPs. States are required to establish goals for improving visibility in national parks and wilderness areas (also known as Class I areas) and to develop long-term strategies for reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause visibility impairment in their own states and for preventing degradation in other states. States must establish a series of interim goals to ensure continued progress by adopting a new SIP every ten years. In the first SIP planning period, states were required to conduct BART determinations for certain covered facilities, including utility boilers, built between 1962 and 1977 that have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of visibility impairing pollution. If it 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 January 10, 2017, EPA published in the Federal Register revisions to the regional haze rule. EPA also provided a companion draft guidance document for public comment. The new rule delayed the due date for the next cycle of SIPs from 2019 to 2021, altered the planning process that states must employ in determining whether to impose “reasonable progress” emission reduction measures, and gave new authority to federal land managers to seek additional emission reduction measures outside of the states’ planning process. Finally, the rule made several procedural changes to the regional haze program, including changes to the schedule and process for states to file 5-year progress reports. EPA’s new rule was challenged by numerous parties. On January 19, 2018, EPA filed a motion to hold the case in abeyance in light of several letters issued by EPA on January 17, 2018 to grant various petitions for reconsideration of the 2017 rule revisions. EPA’s decision to revisit the 2017 rule is not a determination on the merits of the issues raised in the petitions. 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 2016 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 since PNM will retire its share of SJGS in 2022. PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters with respect to Four Corners. Four Corners Four Corners Federal Agency Lawsuit – On April 20, 2016, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit against OSM and other federal agencies in the 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. 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. The court granted NTEC’s motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, terminating the proceedings. In November 2017, the environmental group plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the court granted their subsequent motion to expedite the appeal. 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. On March 24, 2020, the environmental groups filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit's decision. The Supreme Court denied the petition on June 29, 2020, making the decision of the Ninth Circuit to affirm the District Courts dismissal of the case final. This matter is now complete. Carbon Dioxide Emissions On August 3, 2015, EPA established standards to limit CO2 emissions from power plants. EPA took three separate but related actions in which it: (1) established the Carbon Pollution Standards for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants; (2) established the Clean Power Plan to set standards for carbon emission reductions from existing power plants; and (3) released a proposed federal plan associated with the final Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan was published on October 23, 2015. Multiple states, utilities, and trade groups filed petitions for review in the DC Circuit to challenge both the Carbon Pollution Standards for new sources and the Clean Power Plan for existing sources. Numerous parties also simultaneously filed motions to stay the Clean Power Plan during the litigation. On January 21, 2016, the DC Circuit denied petitions to stay the Clean Power Plan, but 29 states and state agencies successfully petitioned the US Supreme Court for a stay, which was granted on February 9, 2016. The decision 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. In addition, the DC Circuit issued a similar order in connection with a motion filed by EPA to hold cases challenging the NSPS in abeyance. On September 17, 2019, the DC Circuit issued an order that granted motions by various petitioners, including industry groups and EPA, to dismiss cases challenging the Clean Power Plan as moot due to EPA's issuance of the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which repealed the Clean Power Plan. 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 Circuit requesting the cases challenging the Clean Power Plan be held in abeyance until after the conclusion of EPA’s review and any subsequent rulemaking, which was granted. In addition, the DC Circuit issued a similar order in connection with a motion filed by EPA to hold cases challenging the NSPS in abeyance. On September 17, 2019, the DC Circuit issued an order that granted motions by various petitioners, including industry groups and EPA, to dismiss the cases challenging the Clean Power Plan as moot due to EPA’s issuance of the Affordable Clean Energy rule. 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 of 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 PNM retires its share of SJGS in 2022. Since the Navajo Nation does not have primacy over its air quality program, EPA would be the regulatory authority responsible for implementing the Affordable Clean Energy rule on the Navajo Nation. PNM is unable to predict the potential financial or operational impacts on Four Corners. 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. 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. PNM cannot predict the impact these standards may have on its operations or a range of the potential costs of compliance, if any. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) The CAA requires EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA has set NAAQS for certain pollutants, including NOx, SO2, ozone, and particulate matter. In 2010, EPA updated the primary NOx and SO2 NAAQS to include a 1-hour standard while retaining the annual standards for NOx and SO2 and the 24-hour SO2 standard. EPA also updated the final particulate matter standard in 2012 and updated the ozone standard in 2015. NOx Standard – On April 18, 2018, EPA published the final rule to retain the current primary health-based NOx standards of which NO2 is the constituent of greatest concern and is the indicator for the primary NAAQS. EPA concluded that the current 1-hour and annual primary NO2 standards are requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. The rule became effective on May 18, 2018. 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 requires areas be designated as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for compliance with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 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 and third annual modeling report to EPA in July 2019 and July 2020. Those reports retained the recommendation that no further modeling is needed at this time and is subject to EPA review. On February 25, 2019, EPA announced its final decision to retain without changes the primary health-based NAAQS for SO2. Specifically, EPA will retain the current 1-hour standard for SO2, which is 75 parts per billion, based on the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations. SO2 is the most prevalent SO2 compound and is used as the indicator for the primary SO2 NAAQS. 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 SO2 emissions to 0.10 pound per MMBTU on SJGS Units 1 and 4 and the installation of BDT equipment modifications for the purpose of reducing fugitive emissions, including NOx, 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 12. Ozone Standard – On October 1, 2015, EPA finalized the new ozone NAAQS and lowered both the primary and secondary 8-hour standard from 75 to 70 parts per billion. With ozone standards becoming more stringent, fossil-fueled generation units will come under increasing pressure to reduce emissions of NOx and volatile organic compounds since these are the pollutants that form ground-level ozone. On July 13, 2020, EPA proposed to retain the existing ozone NAAQS based on a review of the full body of currently available scientific evidence and exposure/risk information, but that proposal has not yet been published in the Federal Register, and EPA is unlikely to finalize the proposal until after the next presidential election. 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. During 2017 and 2018, EPA released rules establishing area designations for ozone. In those rules, San Juan County, New Mexico, where SJGS and Four Corners are located, is designated as attainment/unclassifiable and only a small area in Doña Ana County, New Mexico is designated as marginal non-attainment. Although Afton is located in Doña Ana County, it is not located within the small area designated as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone standard. The final rule also establishes the timing of attainment dates for each non-attainment area classification, which are marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. The rule became effective May 8, 2018. Attainment plans for nonattainment areas are due in August 2021. NMED has responsibility for bringing the small area in Doña 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. Comments or requests for a public hearing were required by January 21, 2020. PNM does not believe there will be material impacts to its facilities as a result of NMED’s non-attainment designation of the small area within Doña Ana County. Until EPA approves attainment designations for the Navajo Nation and releases a proposal to implement the revised ozone NAAQS, PNM is unable to predict what impact the adoption of these standards may have on Four Corners. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter. PM Standard – On January 30, 2020, EPA published in the Federal Register a notice announcing the availability of its final Policy Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (the "Final PA"). The final assessment was prepared as part of the review of the primary and secondary PM NAAQS. In the assessment, EPA recommend lowering the primary annual PM2.5 standard to between 8 µg/m3 and 10 µg/m3. However, on April 30, 2020, EPA published a proposed rule to retain the current standards for PM due to uncertainties in the data relied upon in the Final PA. EPA accepted comments on the proposed rule through June 29, 2020. EPA anticipates issuing a final rulemaking in late 2020. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter or whether it will have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Navajo Nation Environmental Issues 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, APS sought, and the court granted, dismissal of the pending litigation in the Navajo Nation Supreme Court and the Navajo Nation District Court, to the extent the claims relate to the CAA. The agreement does not address or resolve any dispute relating to other aspects of the Navajo Acts. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of these matters or the range of their potential impacts. Cooling Water Intake Structures In 2014, EPA issued a rule establishing national standards for certain cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and other facilities under the Clean Water Act to protect fish and other aquatic organisms by minimizing impingement mortality (the capture of aquatic wildlife on intake structures or against screens) and entrainment mortality (the capture of fish or shellfish in water flow entering and passing through intake structures). 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. The rule is not clear as to how it applies and what the compliance timelines are for facilities like SJGS that have a cooling water intake structure and only a multi-sector general stormwater permit. However, EPA has indicated that it is contemplating a December 31, 2023 compliance deadline. PNM is working with EPA regarding this issue and does not expect material changes as a result of any requirements that may be imposed upon SJGS, particularly given the NMPRC's April 1, 2020 approval for PNM to retire its share of SJGS by June 2022. 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. Oral argument on this appeal has been scheduled for September 3, 2020. 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. Effluent Limitation Guidelines On June 7, 2013, EPA published proposed revised wastewater effluent limitation guidelines establishing technology-based wastewater discharge limitations for fossil fuel-fired electric power plants. EPA’s proposal offered numerous options that target metals and other pollutants in wastewater streams originating from fly ash and bottom ash handling activities, scrubber activities, and non-chemical metal cleaning waste operations. All proposed alternatives establish a “zero discharge” effluent limit for all pollutants in fly ash transport water. Requirements governing bottom ash transport water differ depending on which alternative EPA ultimately chooses and could range from effluent limits based on Best Available Technology Economically Achievable to “zero discharge” effluent limits. EPA signed the final Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines rule on September 30, 2015. The final rule, which became effective on January 4, 2016, phases in the new, more stringent requirements in the form of effluent limits for arsenic, mercury, selenium, and nitrogen for wastewater discharged from wet scrubber systems and zero discharge of pollutants in ash transport water that must be incorporated into plants’ NPDES permits. Each plant must comply between 2018 and 2023 depending on when it needs a new or revised NPDES permit. 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. 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. Because SJGS is zero discharge for wastewater and is not required to hold a NPDES permit, it is expected that minimal to no requirements will be imposed. Reeves Station, a PNM-owned gas-fired generating station, discharges cooling tower blowdown to a publicly owned treatment plant and holds an NPDES permit. It is expected that minimal to no requirements will be imposed at Reeves Station. EPA reissued an NPDES permit for Four Corners on June 12, 2018. Since that time, the NPDES permit at Four Corners has been subject to various challenges by environmental groups. See Cooling Water Intake Structures above for additional discussion of Four Corners' current NPDES permit. Four Corners may be required to change equipment and operating practices affecting boilers and ash handling systems, as well as change its waste disposal techniques during the next NPDES permit renewal in 2023. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of these matters or a range of the potential costs of compliance. Santa Fe Generating Station 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. Field work related to the investigation under both the CAF and abatement plan requirements was completed in October 2019. Activities and findings associated with the field work were presented in two separate reports and released to stakeholders in early 2020. The reports’ conclusions support PNM’s contention that off-site sources have impacted, and are continuing to impact, the local groundwater in the vicinity of the former Santa Fe Generating Station. 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. Coal Combustion Residuals Waste Disposal CCRs consisting of fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum generated from coal combustion and emission control equipment at SJGS are currently disposed of in the surface mine pits adjacent to the plant. SJGS does not operate any CCR impoundments or landfills. The NMMMD currently regulates mine reclamation activities at the San Juan mine, including placement of CCRs in the surface mine pits, with federal oversight by the OSM. APS disposes of CCRs in ponds and dry storage areas at Four Corners. Ash management at Four Corners is regulated by EPA and the New Mexico State Engineer’s Office. 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. CCR disposal units at such plants could 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”. On February 20, 2020, EPA published 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. The deadline to provide comments was extended to July 19, 2020. The final rule is expected in 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 that 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 October 31, 2020 under current regulations. 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. Other Commitments and Contingencies Coal Supply SJGS The coal requirements for SJGS are supplied by WSJ LLC. WSJ LLC holds certain federal, state, and private coal leases. 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 June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, prepayments for coal, which are included in other current assets, amounted to $26.3 million. Additional information concerning the coal supply for SJGS is contained in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2019 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. In conjunction with the activities undertaken to comply with the CAA for SJGS, PNM and the other owners of SJGS evaluated alternatives for the supply of coal to SJGS. 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 6, 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. 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 SJGS Abandonment Application in Note 12. In connection with certain mining permits relating to the operation of the San Juan mine, the San Juan mine owner was required to post reclamation bonds of $118.7 million with the NMMMD. In order to facilitate the posting of reclamation bonds by sureties on behalf of the San Juan mine owner, PNMR entered into letter of credit arrangements with a bank under which letters of credit aggregating $30.3 million have been issued. In May 2020, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. gave notice that it would not extend the letters of credit, which expire on October 21, 2020. PNMR is currently pursuing a replacement agreement. As discussed in Note 6, on March 15, 2019, the assets owned by SJCC were sold to WSJ LLC, a subsidiary of Westmoreland Mining Holdings, LLC. Under the sale agreement, WSJ LLC assumed the rights and obligations of SJCC, including obligations to PNMR under the outstanding letters of credit. Four Corners APS purchases all of Four Corners’ coal requirements from NTEC, an entity owned by the Navajo Nation, under a coal supply contract (the “Four Corners CSA”) that expires in 2031. The coal comes from reserves located within the Navajo Nation. NTEC has contracted with Bisti Fuels Company, LLC, a subsidiary of The North American Coal Corporation, for management and operation of the mine. The contract provides for pricing adjustments over its term based on economic indices. PNM's share of the coal costs is being recovered through the FPPAC. See additional discussion of the Four Corners CSA in Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2019 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. Coal Mine Reclamation As indicated under Coal Combustion Residuals Waste Disposal above, SJGS currently disposes of CCRs in the surface mine pits adjacent to the plant and Four Corners disposes of CCRs in ponds and dry storage areas. As discussed in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2019 Annual Reports on Form 10-K, in conjunction with the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 to comply with the BART requirements of the CAA, periodic updates to the coal mine reclamation study were requested by the SJGS participants. These updates have generally increased PNM's share of the estimated cost of mine reclamation and have included adjustments to reflect the December 2017 shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3, the terms of the reclamation services agreement with WSJ LLC, and changes to reflect the requirements of the 2015 San Juan mine permit plan. In December 2018, PNM 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 of $39.2 million 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. The increase includes costs for 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 related to the underground mine in regulatory assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and received recovery for such costs in its SJGS Abandonment Application. See Note 12. 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. PNM cannot predict the ultimate cost to reclaim the mine that serves SJGS and would seek to recover all costs related to reclaiming the underground mine from its customers but could be exposed to additional loss related to surface mine reclamation. A draft coal mine reclamation study for the mine that serves Four Corners was issued in July 2019. The study reflected operation of the mine through 2031, the term of the Four Corners CSA. In June 2019, the draft study resulted in a net decrease in PNM’s share of the coal mine reclamation obligation of $0.3 million, which was primarily driven by lower overhead costs offset by an increase driven by a reduction in the discount rate used by PNM to measure the liability. In September 2019, the study was finalized and included the same assumptions used in the draft study with limited modifications. PNM updated its liability using the final study and to reflect the appropriate discount rates, which had decreased since PNM’s prior measurement. These updates resulted in an increase to PNM’s share of the coal mine reclamation obligation for the mine that serves Four Corners of $1.1 million during the three months ended September 30, 2019. Based on the most recent estimates and PNM’s ownership share of SJGS, PNM’s remaining payments as of June 30, 2020 for mine reclamation, in future dollars, are estimated to be $90.6 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $40.0 million for the underground mine at SJGS. At June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, liabilities, in current dollars, of $69.9 million and $70.3 million for surface mine reclamation and $26.4 million and $25.3 million for underground mine reclamation were recorded in other deferred credits. 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 discussed in Note 16 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2019 Annual Reports on Form 10-K, as part of the restructuring of SJGS ownership 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 December 2019. Based on PNM’s reclamation trust fund balance at June 30, 2020, the current funding curves indicate PNM’s required contributions to its reclamation trust fund would be $8.8 million in 2020, $10.9 million in 2021, and $11.7 million in 2022. Under the Four Corners CSA, which became effective on July 7, 2016, PNM is required to fund its ownership share of estimated final reclamation costs in annual installments into an irrevocable escrow account solely dedicated to the final reclamation cost of the surface mine at Four Corners. PNM contributed $2.1 million in July 2019 and anticipates providing additional funding of $1.9 million in each of the years from 2020 through 2024. If future estimates increase the liability for surface mine reclamation, the excess would be expensed at that time. The impacts of changes in New Mexico state law as a result of the enactment of the ETA and regulatory determinations made by the NMPRC may also affect PNM’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. See additional discussion regarding PNM’s SJGS Abandonment Application in Note 12. PNM is currently unable to determine the outcome of these matters or the range of possible impacts. Continuous Highwall Mining Royalty Rate In August 2013, the DOI Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) issued a proposed rulemaking that would retroactively apply the surface mining royalty rate of 12.5% to continuous highwall mining (“CHM”). Comments regarding the rulemaking were due on October 11, 2013 and PNM submitted comments in opposition to the proposed rule. There is no legal deadline for adoption of the final rule. SJCC, 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. PVNGS Liability and Insurance Matters Public liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both commercial sources and an industry-wide retrospective payment plan. In accordance with this act, the PVNGS participants are insured against public liability exposure for a nuclear incident up to $13.9 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. PVNGS Decommissioning Liability 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 records its share of the PVNGS decommissioning obligation as an ARO on its Condensed Consolidated Balances Sheet. Studies on the decommissioning costs of PVNGS are performed periodically and revisions to the ARO liability are recorded. In May 2020, a new decommissioning cost study was completed, which required PNM to remeasure its PVNGS decommissioning ARO. The new study resulted in a decrease to PNM’s share of the nuclear decommissioning obligation of $6.4 million as of June 30, 2020. Additional information concerning the Company's PVNGS ARO is contained in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2019 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. Water Supply Because of New Mexico’s arid climate and periodic drought conditions, there is concern in New Mexico about the use of water, including that used for power generation. Although PNM does not believe that its operations will be materially affected by drought conditions at this time, it cannot forecast long-term weather patterns. Public policy, local, state and federal regulations, and litigation regarding water could also impact PNM operations. To help mitigate these risks, PNM has secured permanent groundwater rights for the existing plants at Reeves Station, Rio Bravo, Afton, Luna, Lordsburg, and La Luz. Water availability is not an issue for these plants at this time. However, prolonged drought, ESA activities, and a federal lawsuit by the State of Texas (suing the State of New Mexico over water deliveries) could pose a threat of reduced water availability for these plants. For SJGS and Four Corners, PNM and APS have negotiated an agreement with senior water rights holders (tribes, municipalities, and agricultural interests) in the San Juan basin to mutually share the impacts of water shortages through 2021. In April 2010, APS signed an agreement on behalf of the PVNGS participants with five cities to provide cooling water essential to power production at PVNGS for 40 years. PVNGS Water Supply Litigation In 1986, an action commenced regarding the rights of APS and the other PVNGS participants to the use of groundwater and effluent at PVNGS. APS filed claims that dispute the court’s jurisdiction over PVNGS’ groundwater rights and their contractual rights to effluent relating to PVNGS and, alternatively, seek confirmation of those rights. In 1999, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a decision finding that certain groundwater rights may be available to the federal government and Native American tribes. In addition, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a decision in 2000 affirming the lower court’s criteria for resolving groundwater claims. Litigation on these issues has continued in the trial court. No trial dates have been set in these matters. PNM does not expect that this litigation will have a material impact on its results of operation, financial position, or cash flows. San Juan River Adjudication In 1975, the State of New Mexico filed an action in 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. Rights-of-Way Matter On January 28, 2014, the County Commission of Bernalillo County, New Mexico passed an ordinance requiring utilities to enter into a use agreement and pay a yet-to-be-determined fee as a condition to installing, maintaining, and operating facilities on county rights-of-way. The fee is purported to compensate the county for costs of administering and maintaining the rights-of-way, as well as for capital improvements. 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. Navajo Nation Allottee Matters 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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration