Regulatory and Rate Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Regulated Operations [Abstract]
Regulatory and Rate Matters	Regulatory and Rate Matters PNMR First Choice Request for ERCOT Alternative Dispute Resolution In June 2008, First Choice filed a request for alternative dispute resolution with ERCOT alleging that ERCOT incorrectly applied its protocols with respect to congestion management during the first quarter of 2008. First Choice requested that ERCOT resolve the dispute by restating certain elements of its first quarter 2008 congestion management data and by refunding to First Choice allegedly overstated congestion management charges. This matter was terminated prior to closing of the sale of First Choice. See Note 2. PNM Emergency FPPAC In 2008, the NMPRC authorized PNM to implement an Emergency FPPAC from June 2, 2008 through June 30, 2009. The NMPRC order approving the Emergency FPPAC also provided that if PNM's base load generating units did not operate at or above a specified capacity factor and PNM was required to obtain replacement power to serve jurisdictional customers, PNM would be required to make a filing with the NMPRC seeking approval of the replacement power costs. In its required filing, PNM stated that the costs of the replacement power amounting to $8.0 million were prudently incurred and made a motion that they be approved. The NMPRC staff opposed PNM's motion and recommended that PNM be required to refund the amount collected. Auditors selected by the NMPRC found that PNM was prudent in operating its base load units and in securing replacement power but had not obtained prior NMPRC approval in the manner required by the NMPRC order. PNM continues to assert that its recovery of replacement power costs was proper and did not violate the NMPRC's order. The NMPRC has not ruled on this matter. Under the terms of the approved stipulation in the 2010 Electric Rate Case discussed below, the parties to the stipulation, including the NMPRC staff, will jointly request that the NMPRC take no further action in this matter and close the docket. PNM anticipates this filing will be made in the first quarter of 2012. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. 2008 Electric Rate Case In September 2008, PNM filed its 2008 Electric Rate Case requesting the NMPRC to approve an increase in electric service rates to all PNM retail customers except those formerly served by TNMP. The proposed rates were designed to increase annual operating revenue by $123.3 million. PNM also proposed a FPPAC in the general form authorized by the NMPRC, but with PNM retaining 25% of off-system sales margins and crediting 75% against fuel and purchased power costs. In June 2009, the NMPRC approved a stipulation among PNM and most of the intervening parties to resolve all issues in the case, including the approval of the Resource Stipulation described below. The stipulation provided for an increase in annual non-fuel revenues of $77.1 million, of which 65% was implemented on July 1, 2009 and the remaining 35% was implemented on April 1, 2010. As an offset to the increase, PNM implemented a credit to customers totaling $26.3 million, representing past sales of SO₂ allowances. This amount was credited to ratepayers over 21 months beginning July 1, 2009. In 2009, PNM recorded a regulatory disallowance expense and a regulatory liability for the $26.3 million to be credited to ratepayers. The stipulation also provides that a traditional FPPAC go into effect July 1, 2009 with 100% of off-systems sales margins being credited against costs in the FPPAC. The FPPAC factor is set annually. Under NMPRC rules, PNM must file an application for continued use of its FPPAC at least every four years, which would require a filing by May 28, 2013. This filing may be submitted as part of a general rate proceeding. Resource Stipulation In anticipation of the 2008 Electric Rate Case, the NMPRC approved the Resource Stipulation in May 2009. The Resource Stipulation allowed recovery in rates of costs related to: 1) the Valencia PPA, 2) PNM's acquisition of an ownership interest in Unit 2 of PVNGS that it was leasing (Note 2), and 3) Lordsburg and PNM's interest in Luna. Renewable Portfolio Standard The REA establishes a mandatory RPS requiring a utility to acquire a renewable energy portfolio equal to 5% of retail electric sales by January 1, 2006, increasing to 10% by 2011, 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. The NMPRC requires renewable energy portfolios to be “fully diversified” beginning in 2011, with at least 20% from wind energy, 20% from solar energy, 10% from other renewable technologies, and 1.5% from distributed generation. The REA provides for streamlined proceedings for approval of utilities' renewable energy procurement plans, assures utilities recovery of costs incurred consistent with approved procurement plans, and requires the NMPRC to establish a RCT for the procurement of renewable resources to prevent excessive costs being added to rates. The NMPRC has established a RCT for 2011 of 2% of all customers' aggregated overall annual electric charges that increases by 0.25% annually until reaching 3% in 2015. The NMPRC has docketed a new rulemaking to determine the appropriate calculation methodology of the RCT. The rulemaking also proposes changes to the RPS diversity requirements. In August 2010, the NMPRC partially approved PNM's revised 2010 procurement plan, including PNM's investment in 22 MW of solar PV facilities at various PNM sites and the construction of a solar-storage demonstration project. The NMPRC approved the estimated costs of $107.7 million. Under the REA, actual costs incurred pursuant to and consistent with an approved procurement plan are deemed to be reasonable and recoverable in the ratemaking process. Construction of these facilities was completed in 2011 at a total cost of approximately $95 million. In July 2010, PNM filed its renewable energy procurement plan for 2011. The NMPRC ultimately rejected PNM's proposal to satisfy its 2011 RPS requirement through the purchase of wind RECs and ordered PNM to procure actual wind energy in 2011. While the rejection of RECs is under appeal at the New Mexico Supreme Court, PNM procured the wind energy as ordered in 2011. PNM requested a variance from the diversity requirements for solar and certain “other resources” for 2011 based on the RCT and availability constraints, which the NMPRC granted conditioned upon PNM including in its 2012 procurement plan a proposal that would meet the diversity requirements by April 5, 2013. In July 2011, PNM filed its renewable energy procurement plan for 2012. The plan requested a variance from the RPS due to RCT limitations. The plan was diversity compliant based on the reduced RPS, except for non-wind/non-solar resources, which were not currently available. In December 2011, the NMPRC approved PNM's 2012 plan with modifications. Under the modified plan, PNM must spend $0.9 million more on renewable procurements in 2012 than it originally proposed. If PNM's proposed additional procurements are approved by the NMPRC, the resulting portfolio of renewable resources will constitute approximately 7.3% of PNM's energy sales in 2012, which is less than the statutory RPS of 10%, due to the RCT. The NMPRC also required PNM to file a supplemental plan by April 30, 2012, within which PNM is authorized to include an early filing of its 2013 renewable energy procurement plan. In this filing PNM is to propose procurements to meet the 10% RPS by 2014 or sooner. PNM has requested recovery of the costs of the above programs from customers through a rate rider. See Renewable Energy Rider below. PNM is unable to predict the outcome or impact of these matters. Energy Efficiency and Load Management Program Costs Public utilities are required to obtain NMPRC approval to implement energy efficiency and load management programs. Costs to implement approved programs are recovered through a rate rider. In September 2010, PNM filed an energy efficiency program application for programs to be offered beginning July 1, 2011. The NMPRC issued an order in June 2011 that approved a rider recovery amount of $17.1 million in program costs. The new rider rate was effective with bills rendered July 27, 2011. In April 2011, PNM filed a reconciliation of energy efficiency program costs and collections as of December 31, 2010. Included in this filing was an adjustment of the adder amount to reflect the measured and verified savings for 2010 program participation in its 2010 Annual Electric Energy Efficiency Report, also filed in April 2011. PNM proposed an adjustment to the energy efficiency rider to recover an under-collected balance of $2.6 million. After suspending the proposed adjusted rates, the NMPRC concluded that some of the program costs exceeded approved budgets and determined that an evidentiary hearing should be held to consider whether PNM should be permitted to recover over-budget program. The NMPRC issued an order in November 2011 that approved recovery of substantially all of the under-collected program costs through December 31, 2010. Disincentives/Incentives Adder The Efficient Use of Energy Act requires the NMPRC to remove utility disincentives to implementing energy efficiency and load management programs and to provide incentives for such programs. A rule approved by the NMPRC authorized electric utilities to collect rate adders of $0.01 per KWh for lifetime energy savings and $10 per KW for demand savings related to energy efficiency and demand response programs beginning in 2010. The NMAG and NMIEC appealed the NMPRC order adopting this rule to the New Mexico Supreme Court. PNM began implementing a rate rider under the rule to collect adders related to its 2010 program savings in December 2010 while the appeal of the rule was pending. In July 2011, the Supreme Court annulled and vacated the order adopting the rule and remanded the matter to the NMPRC. As a result of the Supreme Court decision, PNM filed revised tariffs and ceased collecting this adder for 2010 program savings on August 21, 2011. Of the $4.2 million authorized for recovery, $2.6 million had been collected through August 20, 2011. In June 2011 prior to the Supreme Court decision, the NMPRC approved PNM-specific adders of $0.002 per kWh and $4 per kW. PNM is presently collecting $1.3 million in adder revenues consistent with this order. After the Supreme Court decision vacating the rule, the NMPRC initiated a proceeding to determine whether PNM should be required to cease collecting the adders and to refund all adder revenues collected since December 2010. In November 2011, the NMPRC issued orders that PNM is not required to refund any adder revenues and is authorized to continue collecting the adders. However, in an order on rehearing, which it subsequently rescinded, it further reduced the amount of the authorized adders. Prior to the rescission, PNM appealed the rehearing order to the Supreme Court. That appeal is still pending. In a separate appeal and writ proceeding in the Supreme Court, NMIEC and the NMAG seek to overturn the NMPRC order allowing PNM to continue to collect adders in light of the previous Supreme Court decision. PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters. 2010 Electric Rate Case PNM filed its 2010 Electric Rate Case application with the NMPRC in June 2010 for rate increases totaling $165.2 million for all PNM retail customers to be effective April 1, 2011. The application proposed separate rate increases for customers formerly served by TNMP prior to its acquisition by PNMR (“PNM South”) and other customers of PNM (“PNM North”). The filed revenue requirements were based on a future test period ending December 31, 2011. PNM proposed to implement the increase in two phases. Phase 1 would have become effective April 1, 2011 and Phase 2 would have become effective January 1, 2012. PNM also proposed to implement a FPPAC for PNM South. This was the first rate case filing in New Mexico proposing a future test year consistent with recent amendments to the Public Utility Act. In February 2011, PNM, NMPRC staff, NMAG, and several other parties entered into a stipulation that would have allowed PNM to increase rates by $45.0 million immediately following approval and by an additional $40.0 million beginning January 1, 2012. The stipulation, which reflected some aspects of a future test year, was subject to approval of the NMPRC. The PNM South customers would also be covered by the same FPPAC that is utilized for the PNM North customers. In addition, subject to further NMPRC approvals, PNM would be able to recover the costs associated with NMPRC approved renewable energy procurement plans through a rate rider beginning July 1, 2012 or twelve months after the effective date of the new electric rates. PNM would also be able to implement a separate rate rider in 2013 to recover up to an additional $20.0 million to cover changes in plant-related rate base between June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2012. PNM's next general rate adjustment could not go into effect before January 1, 2014, except that PNM could file for recovery of costs to comply with any federal or state environmental law or requirement effective after June 30, 2010. In addition, the stipulation would limit the amount that could be recovered on an annual basis for fuel costs, renewable energy costs, and energy efficiency costs during the period covered by the stipulation. Recovery of costs in excess of the limits would be deferred for collection, without carrying costs, to future periods. In August 2011, the NMPRC issued an order that provided for an immediate $72.1 million rate increase, rejected the capital additions rider, and made other modifications to the stipulation. PNM and other parties to the stipulation filed an amended stipulation in August 2011 that conformed to the modifications. The amended stipulation allows PNM to file a new general rate case for rates to be effective July 1, 2013. PNM implemented the new rates on August 21, 2011. As a result of the modified stipulation, PNM recorded pre-tax losses for the $10.0 million of fuel costs that will not be recovered through the FPPAC and $7.5 million for other costs that will not be recovered in rates. These amounts were recorded as of June 30, 2011 and are reflected as regulatory disallowances on PNM's Consolidated Statement of Earnings. Renewable Energy Rider In January 2012, PNM filed an application for a rate rider that would go into effect in August 2012 to collect costs for renewable energy procurements incurred after December 31, 2010 that are not otherwise being collected in rates. These costs include the procurement of solar RECs from customers, wind resource procurements during November and December 2011 as ordered by the NMPRC, and the revenue requirements for PNM-owned solar PV facilities and a solar battery storage demonstration project that went into service during 2011. The rider's rate for 2012 would be set at 2.081% of the retail customer's monthly bill. The rate would be reset to 2.695% as of January 1, 2013 to reflect unrecovered costs from 2012 and projected costs to be incurred in 2013. The rider would terminate upon a final order in PNM's next general rate case unless that order authorized a continuation of the rider. Amounts that can be collected under the proposed rider are capped at $18.0 million in 2012 and $24.6 million in 2013 under the stipulation in PNM's 2010 Electric Rate Case. Any amounts above the caps are deferred for future recovery without carrying costs. In that stipulation, signatories agreed not to oppose approval of the rider for collection of costs incurred consistent with PNM's approved annual renewable energy plans. As a separate component of the rider, PNM proposes that if its earned return on jurisdictional equity in 2013 exceeds 10.5%, it would refund to customers during May through December 2014 the amount over 10.5%. A procedural schedule has been adopted and a public hearing is scheduled to begin May 14, 2012. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. 2011 Integrated Resource Plan NMPRC rules require that investor owned utilities file an IRP every three years. The IRP is required to cover a 20-year planning period and contain an action plan covering the first four years of that period. In its most recent IRP, which was filed in July 2011, PNM indicated that it planned to meet its anticipated load growth through a combination of new natural gas-fired generating plants, renewable energy resources, load management, and energy efficiency programs. However, PNM has not entered into any commitments regarding these plans beyond what is otherwise described herein. As required by NMPRC rules, PNM utilized a public advisory group process during the development of the 2011 IRP. Two protests were filed to the IRP requesting rejection of the plan. The NMPRC assigned the case to a Hearing Examiner and designated a mediator to facilitate negotiations. The NMPRC staff filed a motion in December 2011 to dismiss the protests and terminate the proceeding on the ground that PNM's IRP fully complies with NMPRC rules. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Transmission Rate Case In October 2010, PNM filed a notice with FERC to increase its wholesale electric transmission revenues by $11.1 million annually, based on a return on equity of 12.25%. The filing also seeks to revise certain Open Access Transmission Tariff provisions and bi-lateral contractual terms. If approved, the rate increase would apply to all of PNM's wholesale electric transmission service customers, which include other utilities, electric co-operatives, and entities that use PNM's transmission system to transmit power at the wholesale level. The proposed rate increase would not impact PNM's retail customers. In December 2010, FERC issued an order accepting PNM's filing and suspending the proposed tariff revisions for five months. The proposed rates were implemented on June 1, 2011, subject to refund. PNM and other parties to the case had engaged in settlement discussions. However, due to an impasse in those settlement negotiations, the settlement judge issued an order in August 2011 designating an ALJ, establishing procedural time standards, and terminating settlement judge procedures. The ALJ scheduled a hearing for this proceeding to commence on April 4, 2012. Subsequent to the ALJ's order setting the hearing, the staff of FERC made a filing recommending an annual revenue increase of $4.6 million, based on a return on equity of 10.4%. After the FERC staff made its filing, settlement discussions have resumed and are ongoing. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding. Firm-Requirements Wholesale Customer Rate Case In September 2011, PNM filed an amended sales agreement between PNM and NEC with FERC. The agreement proposes a cost of service based rate for the electric service and ancillary services PNM provides to NEC, which would result in an annual increase of $8.7 million or a 39.8% increase over existing rates. PNM also requested a FPPAC and full recovery of certain third-party transmission charges PNM incurs to serve NEC. NEC filed a protest to PNM's filing with FERC. In November 2011, FERC issued an order accepting the agreement as filed, suspending the effective date for a five-month period, to be effective April 14, 2012, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for settlement. The parties are currently in settlement negotiations. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding. TNMP TNMP Competitive Transition Charge True-Up Proceeding The true-up proceeding quantified the amount of stranded costs that TNMP can recover, as a CTC, from its customers. A 2004 PUCT decision established $87.3 million as TNMP's stranded costs. TNMP and other parties made a series of appeals on the ruling. In June 2011, the Texas Supreme Court denied all petitions for review and a motion for rehearing, concluding this matter. Interest Rate Compliance Tariff Following a revision of the interest rate on TNMP's CTC, TNMP filed a compliance tariff to implement the new lower 8.31% rate. Intervenors asserted objections and, after regulatory proceedings, the PUCT issued an order making the new rate retroactive to July 20, 2006. TNMP successfully appealed to the District Court in Austin, Texas for the new rate not to be effective prior to December 27, 2007. However, the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and reaffirmed the PUCT's decision. TNMP petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review in July 2011. After opposing parties filed responses, the Texas Supreme Court ordered full briefing of this matter. TNMP is unable to predict if the Texas Supreme Court will review the decision or the ultimate outcome of this matter. However, due to the new retroactive ratemaking theory contained in the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals opinion, TNMP recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $3.9 million in 2011 to reflect the impact of applying the 8.31% rate retroactively. 2008 Rate Case In August 2008, TNMP filed with the PUCT for a general increase in rates. In June 2009, TNMP and other parties reached an unanimous settlement that permitted TNMP to increase revenues by $12.7 million annually. This increase reflected interest and other costs associated with its March 2009 debt refinancing and the settlement adjusted the interest rate TNMP is allowed to collect on its CTC to reflect those costs. The rate increase includes recovery of $17.6 million of Hurricane Ike restoration costs plus carrying costs over five years, although $0.7 million of the costs incurred by TNMP were not included and were written off in 2009. The settlement was approved by the PUCT in August 2009 and rates went into effect on September 1, 2009. 2010 Rate Case In August 2010, TNMP filed with the PUCT for a $20.1 million increase in revenues. In January 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement that provided for a revenue increase of $10.25 million, a return on equity of 10.125%, and a hypothetical 55%/45% debt-equity capital structure. The PUCT approved the settlement in January 2011. TNMP implemented the new rates on February 1, 2011. 2010 Rate Case Expense Proceeding The determination of the amount of reasonable rate case expenses incurred by TNMP and other parties in TNMP's 2010 Rate Case was severed into a separate proceeding. The parties agreed to a settlement of the case, which was approved by the PUCT in May 2011. TNMP began collecting $2.8 million over three years on July 1, 2011. Energy Efficiency TNMP recovers the costs of its energy efficiency programs through an energy efficiency cost recovery factor. The PUCT approved TNMP's collection of its 2010 energy efficiency program costs of $2.6 million over 11 months beginning February 1, 2010. Recovery of the 2011 program costs of $2.7 million were approved for collection beginning January 1, 2011. In September 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement that allows TNMP to collect the estimated 2012 energy efficiency program costs of $3.4 million and a $0.3 million bonus for 2010. TNMP's new rates were effective January 1, 2012. Transmission Rate Filings TNMP can update its transmission rates twice per year to reflect changes in its invested capital. Updated rates would reflect the addition and retirement of transmission facilities, including appropriate depreciation, federal income tax and other associated taxes, and the approved rate of return on such facilities. In March 2010, TNMP filed an application to update its transmission rates to reflect changes in its invested capital. The requested increase in total rate base is $33.8 million, with a total revenue requirement increase of $5.5 million. The PUCT approved the interim adjustment on May 14, 2010. Periodic Distribution Rate Adjustment As required by Texas Senate Bill 1693, the PUCT approved a new rule permitting interim rate adjustments to reflect changes in investments in distribution assets on September 27, 2011. The rule permits distribution utilities to file for a periodic rate adjustment between April 1 through April 8 of each year as long as the electric utility is not earning more than its authorized rate of return using weather-normalized data. Advanced Meter System Deployment and Surcharge Request In July 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement and authorized an advanced meter deployment plan that permits TNMP to collect $113.3 million in deployment costs through a surcharge over a 12-year period. TNMP began collecting the surcharge on August 11, 2011. Deployment of advanced meters began in September 2011 and is scheduled to be completed over a 5-year period. Remand of ERCOT Transmission Rates for 1999 and 2000 Following a variety of appeals, the ERCOT transmission rates approved in 1999 and 2000 were recently remanded back to the PUCT. These dockets concern the recalculation of rates for the fourth quarter of 1999 and all of 2000 to correct over-payments made by certain market participants and the recovery of additional, undetermined transmission costs by the City Public Service Board of San Antonio ("CPS"). In October 2011, TNMP joined in a non-unanimous settlement of the issues relating to resettlement of the last four months of 1999. In October 2011, an ALJ dismissed CPS' claims regarding its resettlement of 2000 and 4^th Quarter of 1999. In January 2012, the PUCT declined to hear CPS' appeal, approved the non-unanimous settlement of the last four months of 1999, and severed any remaining claims belonging to CPS into a separate proceeding. TNMP should receive $1.6 million under the settlement. However, whether such funds have to be passed on to customers will be determined in TNMP's next transmission cost recovery factor filing. TNMP cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.

Regulatory and Rate Matters

PNMR

First Choice Request for ERCOT Alternative Dispute Resolution

In June 2008, First Choice filed a request for alternative dispute resolution with ERCOT alleging that ERCOT incorrectly applied its protocols with respect to congestion management during the first quarter of 2008. First Choice requested that ERCOT resolve the dispute by restating certain elements of its first quarter 2008 congestion management data and by refunding to First Choice allegedly overstated congestion management charges. This matter was terminated prior to closing of the sale of First Choice. See Note 2.

PNM

Emergency FPPAC

In 2008, the NMPRC authorized PNM to implement an Emergency FPPAC from June 2, 2008 through June 30, 2009. The NMPRC order approving the Emergency FPPAC also provided that if PNM's base load generating units did not operate at or above a specified capacity factor and PNM was required to obtain replacement power to serve jurisdictional customers, PNM would be required to make a filing with the NMPRC seeking approval of the replacement power costs. In its required filing, PNM stated that the costs of the replacement power amounting to $8.0 million were prudently incurred and made a motion that they be approved. The NMPRC staff opposed PNM's motion and recommended that PNM be required to refund the amount collected. Auditors selected by the NMPRC found that PNM was prudent in operating its base load units and in securing replacement power but had not obtained prior NMPRC approval in the manner required by the NMPRC order. PNM continues to assert that its recovery of replacement power costs was proper and did not violate the NMPRC's order. The NMPRC has not ruled on this matter. Under the terms of the approved stipulation in the 2010 Electric Rate Case discussed below, the parties to the stipulation, including the NMPRC staff, will jointly request that the NMPRC take no further action in this matter and close the docket. PNM anticipates this filing will be made in the first quarter of 2012. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

2008 Electric Rate Case

In September 2008, PNM filed its 2008 Electric Rate Case requesting the NMPRC to approve an increase in electric service rates to all PNM retail customers except those formerly served by TNMP. The proposed rates were designed to increase annual operating revenue by $123.3 million. PNM also proposed a FPPAC in the general form authorized by the NMPRC, but with PNM retaining 25% of off-system sales margins and crediting 75% against fuel and purchased power costs.

In June 2009, the NMPRC approved a stipulation among PNM and most of the intervening parties to resolve all issues in the case, including the approval of the Resource Stipulation described below. The stipulation provided for an increase in annual non-fuel revenues of $77.1 million, of which 65% was implemented on July 1, 2009 and the remaining 35% was implemented on April 1, 2010. As an offset to the increase, PNM implemented a credit to customers totaling $26.3 million, representing past sales of SO₂ allowances. This amount was credited to ratepayers over 21 months beginning July 1, 2009. In 2009, PNM recorded a regulatory disallowance expense and a regulatory liability for the $26.3 million to be credited to ratepayers. The stipulation also provides that a traditional FPPAC go into effect July 1, 2009 with 100% of off-systems sales margins being credited against costs in the FPPAC. The FPPAC factor is set annually. Under NMPRC rules, PNM must file an application for continued use of its FPPAC at least every four years, which would require a filing by May 28, 2013. This filing may be submitted as part of a general rate proceeding.

Resource Stipulation

In anticipation of the 2008 Electric Rate Case, the NMPRC approved the Resource Stipulation in May 2009. The Resource Stipulation allowed recovery in rates of costs related to: 1) the Valencia PPA, 2) PNM's acquisition of an ownership interest in Unit 2 of PVNGS that it was leasing (Note 2), and 3) Lordsburg and PNM's interest in Luna.

Renewable Portfolio Standard

The REA establishes a mandatory RPS requiring a utility to acquire a renewable energy portfolio equal to 5% of retail electric sales by January 1, 2006, increasing to 10% by 2011, 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. The NMPRC requires renewable energy portfolios to be “fully diversified” beginning in 2011, with at least 20% from wind energy, 20% from solar energy, 10% from other renewable technologies, and 1.5% from distributed generation. The REA provides for streamlined proceedings for approval of utilities' renewable energy procurement plans, assures utilities recovery of costs incurred consistent with approved procurement plans, and requires the NMPRC to establish a RCT for the procurement of renewable resources to prevent excessive costs being added to rates. The NMPRC has established a RCT for 2011 of 2% of all customers' aggregated overall annual electric charges that increases by 0.25% annually until reaching 3% in 2015. The NMPRC has docketed a new rulemaking to determine the appropriate calculation methodology of the RCT. The rulemaking also proposes changes to the RPS diversity requirements.

In August 2010, the NMPRC partially approved PNM's revised 2010 procurement plan, including PNM's investment in 22 MW of solar PV facilities at various PNM sites and the construction of a solar-storage demonstration project. The NMPRC approved the estimated costs of $107.7 million. Under the REA, actual costs incurred pursuant to and consistent with an approved procurement plan are deemed to be reasonable and recoverable in the ratemaking process. Construction of these facilities was completed in 2011 at a total cost of approximately $95 million.

In July 2010, PNM filed its renewable energy procurement plan for 2011. The NMPRC ultimately rejected PNM's proposal to satisfy its 2011 RPS requirement through the purchase of wind RECs and ordered PNM to procure actual wind energy in 2011. While the rejection of RECs is under appeal at the New Mexico Supreme Court, PNM procured the wind energy as ordered in 2011. PNM requested a variance from the diversity requirements for solar and certain “other resources” for 2011 based on the RCT and availability constraints, which the NMPRC granted conditioned upon PNM including in its 2012 procurement plan a proposal that would meet the diversity requirements by April 5, 2013.

In July 2011, PNM filed its renewable energy procurement plan for 2012. The plan requested a variance from the RPS due to RCT limitations. The plan was diversity compliant based on the reduced RPS, except for non-wind/non-solar resources, which were not currently available. In December 2011, the NMPRC approved PNM's 2012 plan with modifications. Under the modified plan, PNM must spend $0.9 million more on renewable procurements in 2012 than it originally proposed. If PNM's proposed additional procurements are approved by the NMPRC, the resulting portfolio of renewable resources will constitute approximately 7.3% of PNM's energy sales in 2012, which is less than the statutory RPS of 10%, due to the RCT. The NMPRC also required PNM to file a supplemental plan by April 30, 2012, within which PNM is authorized to include an early filing of its 2013 renewable energy procurement plan. In this filing PNM is to propose procurements to meet the 10% RPS by 2014 or sooner.

PNM has requested recovery of the costs of the above programs from customers through a rate rider. See Renewable Energy Rider below. PNM is unable to predict the outcome or impact of these matters.

Energy Efficiency and Load Management

Program Costs

Public utilities are required to obtain NMPRC approval to implement energy efficiency and load management programs. Costs to implement approved programs are recovered through a rate rider. In September 2010, PNM filed an energy efficiency program application for programs to be offered beginning July 1, 2011. The NMPRC issued an order in June 2011 that approved a rider recovery amount of $17.1 million in program costs. The new rider rate was effective with bills rendered July 27, 2011.

In April 2011, PNM filed a reconciliation of energy efficiency program costs and collections as of December 31, 2010. Included in this filing was an adjustment of the adder amount to reflect the measured and verified savings for 2010 program participation in its 2010 Annual Electric Energy Efficiency Report, also filed in April 2011. PNM proposed an adjustment to the energy efficiency rider to recover an under-collected balance of $2.6 million. After suspending the proposed adjusted rates, the NMPRC concluded that some of the program costs exceeded approved budgets and determined that an evidentiary hearing should be held to consider whether PNM should be permitted to recover over-budget program. The NMPRC issued an order in November 2011 that approved recovery of substantially all of the under-collected program costs through December 31, 2010.

Disincentives/Incentives Adder

The Efficient Use of Energy Act requires the NMPRC to remove utility disincentives to implementing energy efficiency and load management programs and to provide incentives for such programs. A rule approved by the NMPRC authorized electric utilities to collect rate adders of $0.01 per KWh for lifetime energy savings and $10 per KW for demand savings related to energy efficiency and demand response programs beginning in 2010. The NMAG and NMIEC appealed the NMPRC order adopting this rule to the New Mexico Supreme Court. PNM began implementing a rate rider under the rule to collect adders related to its 2010 program savings in December 2010 while the appeal of the rule was pending. In July 2011, the Supreme Court annulled and vacated the order adopting the rule and remanded the matter to the NMPRC. As a result of the Supreme Court decision, PNM filed revised tariffs and ceased collecting this adder for 2010 program savings on August 21, 2011. Of the $4.2 million authorized for recovery, $2.6 million had been collected through August 20, 2011.

In June 2011 prior to the Supreme Court decision, the NMPRC approved PNM-specific adders of $0.002 per kWh and $4 per kW. PNM is presently collecting $1.3 million in adder revenues consistent with this order. After the Supreme Court decision vacating the rule, the NMPRC initiated a proceeding to determine whether PNM should be required to cease collecting the adders and to refund all adder revenues collected since December 2010. In November 2011, the NMPRC issued orders that PNM is not required to refund any adder revenues and is authorized to continue collecting the adders. However, in an order on rehearing, which it subsequently rescinded, it further reduced the amount of the authorized adders. Prior to the rescission, PNM appealed the rehearing order to the Supreme Court. That appeal is still pending. In a separate appeal and writ proceeding in the Supreme Court, NMIEC and the NMAG seek to overturn the NMPRC order allowing PNM to continue to collect adders in light of the previous Supreme Court decision. PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

2010 Electric Rate Case

PNM filed its 2010 Electric Rate Case application with the NMPRC in June 2010 for rate increases totaling $165.2 million for all PNM retail customers to be effective April 1, 2011. The application proposed separate rate increases for customers formerly served by TNMP prior to its acquisition by PNMR (“PNM South”) and other customers of PNM (“PNM North”). The filed revenue requirements were based on a future test period ending December 31, 2011. PNM proposed to implement the increase in two phases. Phase 1 would have become effective April 1, 2011 and Phase 2 would have become effective January 1, 2012. PNM also proposed to implement a FPPAC for PNM South. This was the first rate case filing in New Mexico proposing a future test year consistent with recent amendments to the Public Utility Act.

In February 2011, PNM, NMPRC staff, NMAG, and several other parties entered into a stipulation that would have allowed PNM to increase rates by $45.0 million immediately following approval and by an additional $40.0 million beginning January 1, 2012. The stipulation, which reflected some aspects of a future test year, was subject to approval of the NMPRC. The PNM South customers would also be covered by the same FPPAC that is utilized for the PNM North customers. In addition, subject to further NMPRC approvals, PNM would be able to recover the costs associated with NMPRC approved renewable energy procurement plans through a rate rider beginning July 1, 2012 or twelve months after the effective date of the new electric rates. PNM would also be able to implement a separate rate rider in 2013 to recover up to an additional $20.0 million to cover changes in plant-related rate base between June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2012. PNM's next general rate adjustment could not go into effect before January 1, 2014, except that PNM could file for recovery of costs to comply with any federal or state environmental law or requirement effective after June 30, 2010. In addition, the stipulation would limit the amount that could be recovered on an annual basis for fuel costs, renewable energy costs, and energy efficiency costs during the period covered by the stipulation. Recovery of costs in excess of the limits would be deferred for collection, without carrying costs, to future periods. In August 2011, the NMPRC issued an order that provided for an immediate $72.1 million rate increase, rejected the capital additions rider, and made other modifications to the stipulation. PNM and other parties to the stipulation filed an amended stipulation in August 2011 that conformed to the modifications. The amended stipulation allows PNM to file a new general rate case for rates to be effective July 1, 2013. PNM implemented the new rates on August 21, 2011.

As a result of the modified stipulation, PNM recorded pre-tax losses for the $10.0 million of fuel costs that will not be recovered through the FPPAC and $7.5 million for other costs that will not be recovered in rates. These amounts were recorded as of June 30, 2011 and are reflected as regulatory disallowances on PNM's Consolidated Statement of Earnings.

Renewable Energy Rider

In January 2012, PNM filed an application for a rate rider that would go into effect in August 2012 to collect costs for renewable energy procurements incurred after December 31, 2010 that are not otherwise being collected in rates. These costs include the procurement of solar RECs from customers, wind resource procurements during November and December 2011 as ordered by the NMPRC, and the revenue requirements for PNM-owned solar PV facilities and a solar battery storage demonstration project that went into service during 2011. The rider's rate for 2012 would be set at 2.081% of the retail customer's monthly bill. The rate would be reset to 2.695% as of January 1, 2013 to reflect unrecovered costs from 2012 and projected costs to be incurred in 2013. The rider would terminate upon a final order in PNM's next general rate case unless that order authorized a continuation of the rider. Amounts that can be collected under the proposed rider are capped at $18.0 million in 2012 and $24.6 million in 2013 under the stipulation in PNM's 2010 Electric Rate Case. Any amounts above the caps are deferred for future recovery without carrying costs. In that stipulation, signatories agreed not to oppose approval of the rider for collection of costs incurred consistent with PNM's approved annual renewable energy plans. As a separate component of the rider, PNM proposes that if its earned return on jurisdictional equity in 2013 exceeds 10.5%, it would refund to customers during May through December 2014 the amount over 10.5%. A procedural schedule has been adopted and a public hearing is scheduled to begin May 14, 2012. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

2011 Integrated Resource Plan

NMPRC rules require that investor owned utilities file an IRP every three years. The IRP is required to cover a 20-year planning period and contain an action plan covering the first four years of that period. In its most recent IRP, which was filed in July 2011, PNM indicated that it planned to meet its anticipated load growth through a combination of new natural gas-fired generating plants, renewable energy resources, load management, and energy efficiency programs. However, PNM has not entered into any commitments regarding these plans beyond what is otherwise described herein. As required by NMPRC rules, PNM utilized a public advisory group process during the development of the 2011 IRP. Two protests were filed to the IRP requesting rejection of the plan. The NMPRC assigned the case to a Hearing Examiner and designated a mediator to facilitate negotiations. The NMPRC staff filed a motion in December 2011 to dismiss the protests and terminate the proceeding on the ground that PNM's IRP fully complies with NMPRC rules. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

Transmission Rate Case

In October 2010, PNM filed a notice with FERC to increase its wholesale electric transmission revenues by $11.1 million annually, based on a return on equity of 12.25%. The filing also seeks to revise certain Open Access Transmission Tariff provisions and bi-lateral contractual terms. If approved, the rate increase would apply to all of PNM's wholesale electric transmission service customers, which include other utilities, electric co-operatives, and entities that use PNM's transmission system to transmit power at the wholesale level. The proposed rate increase would not impact PNM's retail customers. In December 2010, FERC issued an order accepting PNM's filing and suspending the proposed tariff revisions for five months. The proposed rates were implemented on June 1, 2011, subject to refund. PNM and other parties to the case had engaged in settlement discussions. However, due to an impasse in those settlement negotiations, the settlement judge issued an order in August 2011 designating an ALJ, establishing procedural time standards, and terminating settlement judge procedures. The ALJ scheduled a hearing for this proceeding to commence on April 4, 2012. Subsequent to the ALJ's order setting the hearing, the staff of FERC made a filing recommending an annual revenue increase of $4.6 million, based on a return on equity of 10.4%. After the FERC staff made its filing, settlement discussions have resumed and are ongoing. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding.

Firm-Requirements Wholesale Customer Rate Case

In September 2011, PNM filed an amended sales agreement between PNM and NEC with FERC. The agreement proposes a cost of service based rate for the electric service and ancillary services PNM provides to NEC, which would result in an annual increase of $8.7 million or a 39.8% increase over existing rates. PNM also requested a FPPAC and full recovery of certain third-party transmission charges PNM incurs to serve NEC. NEC filed a protest to PNM's filing with FERC. In November 2011, FERC issued an order accepting the agreement as filed, suspending the effective date for a five-month period, to be effective April 14, 2012, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for settlement. The parties are currently in settlement negotiations. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding.

TNMP

TNMP Competitive Transition Charge True-Up Proceeding

The true-up proceeding quantified the amount of stranded costs that TNMP can recover, as a CTC, from its customers. A 2004 PUCT decision established $87.3 million as TNMP's stranded costs. TNMP and other parties made a series of appeals on the ruling. In June 2011, the Texas Supreme Court denied all petitions for review and a motion for rehearing, concluding this matter.

Interest Rate Compliance Tariff

Following a revision of the interest rate on TNMP's CTC, TNMP filed a compliance tariff to implement the new lower 8.31% rate. Intervenors asserted objections and, after regulatory proceedings, the PUCT issued an order making the new rate retroactive to July 20, 2006. TNMP successfully appealed to the District Court in Austin, Texas for the new rate not to be effective prior to December 27, 2007. However, the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and reaffirmed the PUCT's decision. TNMP petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review in July 2011. After opposing parties filed responses, the Texas Supreme Court ordered full briefing of this matter. TNMP is unable to predict if the Texas Supreme Court will review the decision or the ultimate outcome of this matter. However, due to the new retroactive ratemaking theory contained in the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals opinion, TNMP recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $3.9 million in 2011 to reflect the impact of applying the 8.31% rate retroactively.

2008 Rate Case

In August 2008, TNMP filed with the PUCT for a general increase in rates. In June 2009, TNMP and other parties reached an unanimous settlement that permitted TNMP to increase revenues by $12.7 million annually. This increase reflected interest and other costs associated with its March 2009 debt refinancing and the settlement adjusted the interest rate TNMP is allowed to collect on its CTC to reflect those costs. The rate increase includes recovery of $17.6 million of Hurricane Ike restoration costs plus carrying costs over five years, although $0.7 million of the costs incurred by TNMP were not included and were written off in 2009. The settlement was approved by the PUCT in August 2009 and rates went into effect on September 1, 2009.

2010 Rate Case

In August 2010, TNMP filed with the PUCT for a $20.1 million increase in revenues. In January 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement that provided for a revenue increase of $10.25 million, a return on equity of 10.125%, and a hypothetical 55%/45% debt-equity capital structure. The PUCT approved the settlement in January 2011. TNMP implemented the new rates on February 1, 2011.

2010 Rate Case Expense Proceeding

The determination of the amount of reasonable rate case expenses incurred by TNMP and other parties in TNMP's 2010 Rate Case was severed into a separate proceeding. The parties agreed to a settlement of the case, which was approved by the PUCT in May 2011. TNMP began collecting $2.8 million over three years on July 1, 2011.

Energy Efficiency

TNMP recovers the costs of its energy efficiency programs through an energy efficiency cost recovery factor. The PUCT approved TNMP's collection of its 2010 energy efficiency program costs of $2.6 million over 11 months beginning February 1, 2010. Recovery of the 2011 program costs of $2.7 million were approved for collection beginning January 1, 2011. In September 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement that allows TNMP to collect the estimated 2012 energy efficiency program costs of $3.4 million and a $0.3 million bonus for 2010. TNMP's new rates were effective January 1, 2012.

Transmission Rate Filings

TNMP can update its transmission rates twice per year to reflect changes in its invested capital. Updated rates would reflect the addition and retirement of transmission facilities, including appropriate depreciation, federal income tax and other associated taxes, and the approved rate of return on such facilities. In March 2010, TNMP filed an application to update its transmission rates to reflect changes in its invested capital. The requested increase in total rate base is $33.8 million, with a total revenue requirement increase of $5.5 million. The PUCT approved the interim adjustment on May 14, 2010.

Periodic Distribution Rate Adjustment

As required by Texas Senate Bill 1693, the PUCT approved a new rule permitting interim rate adjustments to reflect changes in investments in distribution assets on September 27, 2011. The rule permits distribution utilities to file for a periodic rate adjustment between April 1 through April 8 of each year as long as the electric utility is not earning more than its authorized rate of return using weather-normalized data.

Advanced Meter System Deployment and Surcharge Request

In July 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement and authorized an advanced meter deployment plan that permits TNMP to collect $113.3 million in deployment costs through a surcharge over a 12-year period. TNMP began collecting the surcharge on August 11, 2011. Deployment of advanced meters began in September 2011 and is scheduled to be completed over a 5-year period.

Remand of ERCOT Transmission Rates for 1999 and 2000

Following a variety of appeals, the ERCOT transmission rates approved in 1999 and 2000 were recently remanded back to the PUCT. These dockets concern the recalculation of rates for the fourth quarter of 1999 and all of 2000 to correct over-payments made by certain market participants and the recovery of additional, undetermined transmission costs by the City Public Service Board of San Antonio ("CPS"). In October 2011, TNMP joined in a non-unanimous settlement of the issues relating to resettlement of the last four months of 1999. In October 2011, an ALJ dismissed CPS' claims regarding its resettlement of 2000 and 4^th Quarter of 1999. In January 2012, the PUCT declined to hear CPS' appeal, approved the non-unanimous settlement of the last four months of 1999, and severed any remaining claims belonging to CPS into a separate proceeding. TNMP should receive $1.6 million under the settlement. However, whether such funds have to be passed on to customers will be determined in TNMP's next transmission cost recovery factor filing. TNMP cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.