XML 54 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.4

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 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 17. It is not possible at this time for the Company to determine fully the effect of all litigation and other legal and regulatory proceedings on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. With respect to some of the items listed below, the Company has determined that a loss is not probable or that, to the extent probable, cannot be reasonably estimated. In some cases, the Company is not able to predict with any degree of certainty the range of possible loss that could be incurred. The Company assesses legal and regulatory matters based on current information and makes judgments concerning their potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of any damages sought, and the probability of success. Such judgments are made with the understanding that the outcome of any litigation, investigation, or other legal proceeding is inherently uncertain. The Company records liabilities for matters where it is probable a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable. The actual outcomes of the items listed below could ultimately differ from the judgments made and the differences could be material. The Company cannot make any assurances that the amount of reserves or potential insurance coverage will be sufficient to cover the cash obligations that might be incurred as a result of litigation or regulatory proceedings. Except as otherwise disclosed, the Company does not expect that any known lawsuits, environmental costs, and commitments will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Commitments and Contingencies Related to the Environment PVNGS Decommissioning Funding The costs of decommissioning a nuclear power plant are substantial. PNM is responsible for all decommissioning obligations related to its entire interest in PVNGS, including portions under lease both during and after termination of the leases. PNM has a program for funding its share of decommissioning costs for PVNGS, including portions held under leases. The nuclear decommissioning funding program is invested in equities and fixed income instruments in qualified and non-qualified trusts. PNM funded $1.3 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018 into the qualified trust funds. The market value of the trusts at December 31, 2020 and 2019 was $379.2 million and $336.0 million. See Note 17 for additional discussion of the NM Supreme Court’s decisions in PNM’s appeal of the NMPRC’s decisions in the NM 2015 Rate Case. Nuclear 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. In July 2020, APS accepted the DOE’s extension of the settlement agreement for recovery of costs incurred through December 31, 2022. 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. 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 December 31, 2020 and 2019, PNM had a liability for interim storage costs of $12.8 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 Energy Transition Act On March 22, 2019, the Governor signed into New Mexico state law Senate Bill 489, known as the Energy Transition Act (“ETA”). The ETA became effective as of June 14, 2019 and sets a statewide standard that requires investor-owned electric utilities to have specified percentages of their electric-generating portfolios be from renewable and zero-carbon generating resources. The ETA amends the REA and requires utilities operating in New Mexico to have renewable portfolios equal to 20% by 2020, 40% by 2025, 50% by 2030, 80% by 2040, and 100% zero-carbon energy by 2045. The ETA also amends sections of the REA to allow for the recovery of undepreciated investments and decommissioning costs related to qualifying EGUs that the NMPRC has required be removed from retail jurisdictional rates, provided replacement resources to be included in retail rates have lower or zero-carbon emissions. The ETA requires the NMPRC to review and approve utilities’ annual renewable portfolio plans to ensure compliance with the RPS. The ETA also directs the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board to adopt standards of performance that limit CO 2 emissions to no more than 1,100 lbs. per MWh beginning January 1, 2023 for new or existing coal-fired EGUs with original installed capacities exceeding 300 MW. The ETA provides for a transition from fossil-fuel generation resources to renewable and other carbon-free resources through certain provisions relating to the abandonment of coal-fired generating facilities. These provisions include the use of energy transition bonds, which are designed to be highly rated bonds that can be issued to finance certain costs of abandoning coal-fired facilities that are retired prior to January 1, 2023 for facilities operated by a “qualifying utility,” or prior to January 1, 2032 for facilities that are not operated by the qualifying utility. The amount of energy transition bonds that can be issued to recover abandonment costs is limited to the lesser of $375.0 million or 150% of the undepreciated investment of the facility as of the abandonment date. Proceeds provided by energy transition bonds must be used only for purposes related to providing utility service to customers and to pay energy transition costs (as defined by the ETA). These costs may include plant decommissioning and coal mine reclamation costs provided those costs have not previously been recovered from customers or disallowed by the NMPRC or by a court order. See Note 17 for a discussion of the NM Supreme Court’s decision to affirm the NMPRC’s disallowance of certain costs, including the cost of BDT at SJGS, in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case. Proceeds from energy transition bonds may also be used to fund severances for employees of the retired facility and related coal mine and to promote economic development, education and job training in areas impacted by the retirement of the coal-fired facilities. Energy transition bonds must be issued under a NMPRC approved financing order, are secured by “energy transition property,” are non-recourse to the issuing utility, and must be repaid by a non-bypassable charge paid by all customers of the issuing utility. These customer charges are subject to an adjustment mechanism designed to provide for timely and complete payment of principal and interest due under the energy transition bonds. The ETA also provides that utilities must obtain NMPRC approval of competitively procured replacement resources that shall be evaluated based on their cost, economic development opportunity, ability to provide jobs with comparable pay and benefits to those lost upon retirement of the facility, and that do not exceed emissions thresholds specified in the ETA. In determining whether to approve replacement resources, the NMPRC must give preference to resources with the least environmental impacts, those with higher ratios of capital costs to fuel costs, and those located in the school district of the abandoned facility. The ETA also provides for the procurement of energy storage facilities and gives utilities discretion to maintain, control, and operate these systems to ensure reliable and efficient service. PNM expects the ETA will have a significant impact on PNM’s future generation portfolio, including PNM’s planned retirements of SJGS in 2022 and the planned Four Corners exit in 2024. PNM cannot predict the full impact of the ETA or the outcome of its pending and potential future generating resource abandonment and replacement resource filings with the NMPRC. See additional discussion in Note 17 of PNM’s SJGS and Four Corners Abandonment Applications. 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 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, 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. In 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, but is likely to be reconsidered by the Biden Administration. SIPs for the second planning 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 be required to submit 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. SJGS December 2018 Compliance Filing – In December 2015 PNM received NMPRC approval for a plan to comply with EPA’s regional haze rule at SJGS. Among other things, the NMPRC’s December 2015 order required that, no later than December 31, 2018, PNM make a filing with the NMPRC to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s customers’ needs after June 30, 2022 (the “December 2018 Compliance Filing”). The December 2018 Compliance Filing was required to be made before PNM entered into a binding commitment for post-2022 coal supply but after PNM received firm pricing and other terms for the supply of coal at SJGS, unless PNM did not intend to pursue an agreement for post-2022 coal supply at SJGS. The NMPRC’s December 2015 order also indicated that, if SJGS Unit 4 is abandoned with undepreciated investment on PNM’s books, PNM is prohibited from recovering the undepreciated investment of its 132 MW interest and required that PNM’s 65 MW interest in SJGS Unit 4 be treated as excluded merchant plant. PNM submitted the December 2018 Compliance Filing to the NMPRC on December 31, 2018 indicating that, consistent with the conclusions reached in PNM’s 2017 IRP, PNM’s customers would benefit from the retirement of PNM’s share of SJGS after the current SJGS CSA expires in mid-2022. The December 2018 Compliance Filing also indicated that, pursuant to the terms of the agreements governing SJGS, all of the SJGS owners except for Farmington provided written notice that they do not intend to extend the SJGS operating agreements beyond their June 30, 2022 expiration dates, and that PNM has provided written notice to the San Juan mine operator that PNM does not intend to extend the SJGS CSA beyond June 30, 2022. On January 30, 2019, the NMPRC issued an order initiating a proceeding and requiring PNM to submit an application for the abandonment of PNM’s share of SJGS by March 1, 2019. On February 27, 2019, PNM filed a petition with the NM Supreme Court stating that the requirements of the January 30, 2019 order exceed the NMPRC’s authority by, among other things, mandating PNM to make a filing that is legally voluntary, and that the order is contrary to NMPRC precedent which requires abandonment applications to also include identified replacement resources and other information that would not be available to PNM by March 1, 2019. On March 1, 2019, the NM Supreme Court granted a temporary stay of the NMPRC’s order. Various parties intervened in the petition. On June 26, 2019, and after the effective date of the ETA, the NM Supreme Court lifted the stay and denied PNM’s petition without discussion. On July 1, 2019, PNM filed its SJGS Abandonment Application. See Note 17. Long-lived assets are required to be tested for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying value may not be recoverable. As of December 31, 2018, PNM evaluated the events surrounding its future participation in SJGS and determined that it was more likely than not that PNM’s share of SJGS will be retired in 2022. As a result, PNM performed an impairment analysis that assumed SJGS would not continue to operate through 2053, as previously approved by the NMPRC. PNM’s impairment analysis indicated that PNM’s undepreciated 132 MW interest in SJGS Unit 4 at June 30, 2022 will not be recovered from customers; that the estimated future cash flows expected to result from the operation of SJGS Unit 4 through June 30, 2022 are not sufficient to provide for recovery of PNM’s 65 MW merchant interest in the facility; and that it is unlikely PNM will be able to sell or transfer its interests in SJGS to third parties at amounts sufficient to provide for their recovery. As a result, as of December 31, 2018, PNM recorded a pre-tax impairment of its investment in SJGS of approximately $35.0 million, which is reflected as regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. This amount includes the entire $11.9 million carrying value of PNM’s 65 MW interest in SJGS Unit 4 as of December 31, 2018 and $23.1 million of estimated undepreciated investments in PNM’s 132 MW jurisdictional interest as of June 30, 2022 that will not be recovered from customers. See additional discussion below regarding the increase in PNM’s estimated liability for coal mine reclamation. NEE Complaint – On March 31, 2016, NEE filed a complaint with the NMPRC alleging that PNM failed to comply with its discovery obligation in the case authorizing the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and requesting the NMPRC investigate whether financing provided by NM Capital to the former owner of SJCC (the “Westmoreland Loan”) could adversely affect PNM’s ability to provide electric service to its retail customers. On January 31, 2018, NEE filed a motion asking the NMPRC to investigate whether PNM’s relationship with the former owner of SJCC could be harmful to PNM’s customers. On May 23, 2018, PNM filed its response to the NMPRC staff’s comments noting that the Westmoreland Loan was paid in full on May 22, 2018. On October 11, 2018, PNM notified the NMPRC that the former owner of SJCC, Westmoreland, had filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As discussed in Note 10, on March 15, 2019, Westmoreland announced that it had emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a privately held company owned and operated by a group of its former creditors. Under the reorganization, all the assets of SJCC were sold to WSJ LLC. As successor entity to SJCC, WSJ LLC assumed all rights and obligations of Westmoreland including obligations to PNM under the SJGS CSA. The NMPRC has taken no further action on NEE’s complaint. PNM is not able to predict the potential outcome of this matter but does not anticipate the NMPRC will take any further action. Four Corners On August 6, 2012, EPA issued its Four Corners FIP with a final BART determination for Four Corners. The rule included two compliance alternatives. On December 30, 2013, APS notified EPA that the Four Corners participants selected the alternative that required APS to permanently close Units 1, 2, and 3 by January 1, 2014 and install SCR post-combustion NOx control technology on each of Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018. Installation of SCRs on Four Corners Unit 5 was completed in March 2018 and the installation on Unit 4 was completed in June 2018. PNM owns a 13% interest in Units 4 and 5, but had no ownership interest in Units 1, 2, and 3, which were shut down by APS on December 30, 2013. For particulate matter emissions, EPA is requiring Units 4 and 5 to meet an emission limit of 0.015 lbs./MMBTU and the plant to meet a 20% opacity limit, both of which are achievable through operation of the existing baghouses. Although unrelated to BART, the final BART rule also imposes a 20% opacity limitation on certain fugitive dust emissions from Four Corners’ coal and material handling operations. PNM share of costs for post-combustion controls at Four Corners Units 4 and 5 through December 31, 2018 was $88.7 million, including PNM’s AFUDC. See Note 17 for information on the NMPRC’s treatment of these costs in PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case and the Four Corners Abandonment Application. 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 U.S. 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 CO 2 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 and challengers successfully petitioned the US Supreme Court for a stay of the Clean Power Plan. However, before the DC Circuit could issue an opinion regarding either the Carbon Pollution Standards or the Clean Power Plan, the Trump Administration asked that the case be held in abeyance while the rule was being re-evaluated, which was granted. On June 19, 2019, EPA repealed the Clean Power Plan; promulgated the ACE Rule; and revised the implementing regulations for all emission guidelines. 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 directed 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. 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 ACE Rule. However, on January 19, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion in American Lung Association and American Public Health Association v. EPA, et al. regarding challenges to the ACE Rule. The D.C. Circuit vacated the ACE Rule and remanded the record back to the EPA for further consideration consistent with its opinion, finding that EPA misinterpreted the CAA when it determined that the language of section 111 unambiguously barred consideration of emissions reductions options that were not applied at the source. Unless the court issues a stay of its mandate, the mandate for its decision will issue in March 2021 after the deadline passes for petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc, although an appeal via petitions for certiorari to the US Supreme Court will remain available until June 2021. EPA has filed a motions seeking a partial stay of the mandate as to the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, to ensure the court’s order will not render effective the now out-of-date Clean Power Plan, but the court has not yet acted on that motion. The litigation over the Carbon Pollution Standards remains held in abeyance but could be reactivated by the parties upon a determination by the court that the Biden Administration is unlikely to finalize the revisions proposed in 2018 and that reconsideration of the rule has concluded. While corresponding NSR reform regulations were proposed as part of the proposed ACE Rule, the final rule did not include such reform measures. Unrelated to the ACE 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 final rule on NSR Project Emissions Accounting became effective on December 24, 2020 clarifying 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, but the rule may be reconsidered by the Biden Administration. On January 27, 2021, President Biden signed an extensive Executive Order aimed at addressing climate change concerns domestically and internationally. The order is intended build on the initial climate-related actions the Biden Administration took on January 20, 2021. It addresses a wide range of issues, including establishing climate change concerns as an essential element of U.S. foreign and security policy, identifying a process to determine the U.S. INDC under the Paris Agreement, and establishing a Special Presidential Envoy for Climate that will sit on the National Security Council. PNM’s review of the GHG emission reductions standards that may occur as a result of legislation or regulation under the new Biden Administration and in response to the court’s ruling on the ACE Rule is ongoing. 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, SO 2, ozone, and particulate matter. NO X Standard – On April 18, 2018, EPA published the final rule to retain the current primary health-based NOx standards of which NO 2 is the constituent of greatest concern and is the indicator for the primary NAAQS. EPA concluded that the current 1-hour and annual primary NO 2 standards are requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. The rule became effective on May 18, 2018. SO 2 Standard – On May 13, 2014, EPA released the draft data requirements rule for the 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS, which directs state and tribal air agencies to characterize current air quality in areas with large SO 2 sources to identify maximum 1-hour SO 2 concentrations. This characterization requires areas be designated as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for compliance with the 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. On August 11, 2015, EPA released the Data Requirements Rule for SO 2, telling states how to model or monitor to determine attainment or nonattainment with the new 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. 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 SO 2 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 SO 2. Specifically, EPA will retain the current 1-hour standard for SO 2, which is 75 parts per billion, based on the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour SO 2 concentrations. 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. EPA finalized its decision to retain the ozone NAAQS in a notice published on December 31, 2020 making it immediately effective. 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 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 NAAQS 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 recommended 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. On December 7, 2020, EPA announced it will retain, without revision, the existing primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for PM, and EPA published a notice of that final action on December 18, 2020, making it immediately effective. On February 9. 2021, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit challenging EPA’s final rule regarding NAAQS particulate matter. 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 (“EAB”) 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 EAB. EAB 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 EAB. Oral argument was heard on September 3, 2020. The EAB issued an order denying the petition for review on September 30, 2020. The denial was based on the EAB’s determination that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that review of the permit was warranted on any of the grounds presented in the petition. PNM cannot predict whether there will be further appeals of this matter or whether the outcome of any such appeal 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 signed the final Steam Electric Effluent Limitation Guidelines rule on September 30, 2015. The final rule, which became effective on January 4, 2016, phased 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. The 2015 rule required each plant to comply between 2018 and 2023 depending on when it needs a new or revised NPDES permit. The Steam Electric Effluent Limitation 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. 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. On October 13, 2020, EPA published in the Federal Register the final Steam Electric Effluent Limitation Guidelines and standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, revising the final 2015 guidelines for both flue gas desulfurization wastewater and bottom ash transport water. The rule will require compliance with new limits as soon as possible on or after October 13, 2021 (beginning one year after the publication date) but no later than December 31, 2025. 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 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. 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. Subsequent field work was completed in July 2020 and two reports were released supporting 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 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. On August 14, 2019, EPA published the “Phase Two” proposed rule 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. The spring 2020 regulatory agenda states EPA is not taking final action at this time on this proposed rule but will continue to reconsider these issues and seek additional information. 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”. EPA’s final Part A CCR rule was issued on August 28, 2020 and became effective on September 28, 2020. This rule finalizes the classification of soil-lined and clay-lined surface impoundments as unlined, triggering closure or retrofit requirements for those impoundments. The final rule also gives operators until April 11, 2021, rather than the originally proposed October 31, 2020 deadline, to cease receipt of waste at these units and begin the closure process. On March 3, 2020, EPA issued a proposed rule, Part B, addressing demonstrations for clay liners and regulations addressing beneficial use for closure of surface impoundments. On October 16, 2020, EPA released a prepublication draft copy of the final Part B rule. This rule did not include beneficial use of CCR for closure, which EPA explains will be addressed in subsequent rulemaking action. EPA intends to issue several other rulemakings covering legacy ponds and finalizing parts of previously proposed rules. These proposed rules and final rules are expected in 2021. 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 August 7, 2020. The final rule is expected in May 2021. 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 retail customers of all CCR costs for jurisdictional assets that are ultimately incurred. Utilities that own or operate CCR disposal units, such as those at Four Corners, as indicated above, 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 April 11, 2021. 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. In addition to coal delivered to meet the current needs of SJGS, PNM has prepaid the current San Juan mine owner and operator, WSJ LLC, for certain coal mined but not yet delivered to the plant site. At both December 31, 2020 and 2019, prepayments for coal, which are included in other current assets, amounted to $26.3 million. In conjunction with the activities undertaken to comply with the CAA for SJGS 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 10, with the closing of the sale of the assets of SJCC on March 15, 2019, WSJ LLC assumed the rights and obligations of SJCC under the SJGS CSA and the agreements for CCR disposal and mine reclamation services. Pricing under the SJGS CSA is primarily fixed, with adjustments to reflect changes in general inflation. The pricing structure takes into account that WSJ LLC has been paid for coal mined but not delivered. 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 17. The SJGS RA sets forth terms under which PNM acquired the coal inventory, including coal mined but not delivered, of the exiting SJGS participants as of January 1, 2016 and supplied coal to the SJGS exiting participants for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017 and is supplying coal to the SJGS remaining participants over the term of the SJGS CSA. Coal costs under the SJGS CSA are significantly less than under the previous arrangement with SJCC. Since substantially all of PNM’s coal costs are passed through the FPPAC, the benefit of the reduced costs is passed through to PNM’s customers. In 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. As discussed in Note 10, 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 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. In connection with the exit of Four Corners, PNM would make payments of $75 million to NTEC for relief from its obligations under the coal supply agreement for Four Corners after December 31, 2024. See Note 17 for additional information on PNM’s Four Corners Abandonment Application. PNM’s share of the coal costs is being recovered through the FPPAC. 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. The SJGS RA required PNM to complete an update to the reclamation cost estimate after the December 31, 2017 shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3. This reclamation cost estimate was completed in October 2018 and assumed continuation of mining operations through 2053. The study indicated a decrease in reclamation costs primarily driven by lower inflationary factors used to determine the estimated future cost of reclamation activities. PNM recorded its $2.5 million share of this decrease in September 2018, which is reflected in regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. As discussed above, PNM submitted the December 2018 Compliance Filing to the NMPRC indicating that, consistent with the conclusions reached in PNM’s 2017 IRP, PNM expects to retire its share of SJGS after the current SJGS CSA expires in mid-2022. PNM determined that events and circumstances regarding SJGS, including the December 2018 Compliance Filing, indicated that it is more likely than not that PNM’s share of SJGS will be retired in 2022. As a result, in December 2018 PNM again remeasured its liability for coal mine reclamation for the mine that serves SJGS to reflect that reclamation activities may occur beginning in 2022, rather than in 2053 as previously anticipated. This estimate resulted in an increase in overall reclamation costs 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 million for both SJGS and Four Corners. As a result, PNM recorded $9.4 million of the increase in the liability at December 31, 2018 related to the underground mine in regulatory assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and recorded the remaining $29.8 million associated with the surface mine as regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. A subsequent mine reclamation costs study was completed in late 2020 for the mine that serves SJGS and in December 2020 PNM remeasured its liability, which resulted in an increase in overall reclamation costs of $3.6 million, due primarily to higher inflationary factors. As a result, PNM recorded less than $0.1 million as a decrease in the liability at December 31, 2020 related to the underground mine in regulatory assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and recorded $3.6 million as an increase in the liability associated with the surface mine as regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. PNM’s estimate of the costs necessary to reclaim the mine that serves SJGS is subject to many assumptions, including the timing of reclamation, generally accepted practices at the time reclamation activities occur, and then current inflation and discount rates. 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 coal mine reclamation study for the mine that serves Four Corners was issued in 2019. The study reflected operation of the mine through 2031, the term of the Four Corners CSA. The study resulted in a net increase in PNM’s share of the coal mine reclamation obligation of $0.8 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 and is reflected in cost of energy in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. As discussed in Note 17, PNM remains responsible for its share of costs associated with mine reclamation under the Four Corners Purchase and Sale Agreement with NTEC. NTEC and PNM will complete a reclamation study in 2024 providing the final mine reclamation cost estimate on the date of ownership transfer. PNM will make its final reclamation payment to NTEC based on the reclamation study in 2024 and will have no further obligations regarding the mine reclamation after 2024. PNM determined that events and circumstances regarding Four Corners, including the Four Corners Purchase and Sale Agreement with NTEC and the Four Corners Abandonment Application, indicated that it is more likely than not that PNM’s share of Four Corners coal mine reclamation obligation would be settled in 2024, rather than 2031. As of December 31, 2020, PNM remeasured its Four Corners coal mine reclamation liability. As a result, PNM recorded a decrease to the liability of $2.5 million on the Consolidated Balance Sheet and a decrease to regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statement of Earnings. Based on the most recent estimates and PNM’s ownership share of SJGS, PNM’s remaining payments for mine reclamation, in future dollars, are estimated to be $80.1 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $35.1 million for the underground mine at SJGS as of December 31, 2020. At December 31, 2020 and 2019, liabilities, in current dollars, of $71.7 million and $70.3 million for surface mine reclamation and $26.1 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 part of the restructuring of SJGS ownership (see SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters above), the SJGS owners negotiated the terms of an amended agreement to fund post-term reclamation obligations under the CSA. The trust funds agreement requires each owner to enter into an individual trust agreement with a financial institution as trustee, create an irrevocable reclamation trust, and periodically deposit funds into the reclamation trust for the owner’s share of the mine reclamation obligation. Deposits, which are based on funding curves, must be made on an annual basis. As part of the restructuring of SJGS ownership discussed above, the SJGS participants agreed to adjusted interim trust funding levels. PNM funded $3.2 million in 2020, $5.5 million in 2019, and $10.0 million in 2018. Based on PNM’s reclamation trust fund balance at December 31, 2020, the current funding curves indicate PNM’s required contributions to its reclamation trust fund would be $5.8 million in 2021, $6.2 million in 2022, and zero in 2023. Under the Four Corners CSA 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 $2.0 million in 2020 and $2.3 million in each of 2019 and 2018 and anticipates providing additional funding of $2.1 million in each of the years from 2021 through 2024. PNM will make its final reclamation payment to NTEC based on the reclamation study in 2024 and will have no further obligations regarding the mine reclamation. 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 2018 Compliance Filing above and its SJGS and Four Corners Abandonment Applications in Note 17. 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 $13.8 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 $13.3 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 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. 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. Merger-Related Litigation As of February 19, 2021 six purported shareholders of PNMR have filed lawsuits against PNMR and the members of the Board challenging the proposed Merger with Avangrid. Five of the lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and one was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuits pending in the Southern District of New York have been consolidated and the consolidated case is captioned In re PNM Resources, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-10874. The case pending in the Eastern District of New York is captioned Durlacher v. PNM Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-0024. The lawsuits challenge the adequacy of the disclosures in the definitive proxy statement filed by PNMR with the SEC on January 5, 2021 and seek, among other things, to enjoin the Merger or, if the Merger has been consummated, to rescind the Merger or an award of damages, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses. PNMR believes that the claims raised in the actions are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

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