C. Regulation

General

The rates and services of the Company are regulated by incorporated municipalities in Texas, the PUCT, the NMPRC, and the FERC. The PUCT and the NMPRC have jurisdiction to review municipal orders, ordinances, and utility agreements regarding rates and services within their respective states and over certain other activities of the Company. The FERC has jurisdiction over the Company's wholesale transactions and compliance with federally-mandated reliability standards. The decisions of the PUCT, NMPRC and the FERC are subject to judicial review.

Texas Regulatory Matters

2009 Texas Retail Rate Case. On December 9, 2009, the Company filed an application with the PUCT for authority to change rates, to reconcile fuel costs, to establish formula-based fuel factors, and to establish an energy efficiency cost-recovery factor. This case was assigned PUCT Docket No. 37690. The filing included a base rate increase which was based upon an adjusted test year ended June 30, 2009.

On July 30, 2010, the PUCT approved a settlement in the 2009 Texas retail rate case in PUCT Docket No. 37690. The settlement called for an annual non-fuel base rate increase of $17.15 million effective for usage beginning July 1, 2010. The new rate structure resulted in net increases in base rates during the peak summer season of May through October and net decreases in base rates during November through April. This increase was partially offset by the provision that, consistent with a prior rate agreement, effective July 1, 2010, the Company shares 90% of off-system sales margins with customers and retains 10% of such margins. Previously, the Company retained 75% of off-system sales margins. All additions to electric plant in service since June 30, 1993 through June 30, 2009 were deemed to be reasonable and necessary with the exception of one small addition. The Company's new customer information system completed in April 2010 was also included in base rates with a ten-year amortization. The settlement provided for the reconciliation of fuel costs incurred through June 30, 2009 except for the recovery of final Four Corners' coal mine reclamation costs. The fuel reconciliation (Docket No. 38361, discussed below) was bifurcated from the rate case to allow for litigation of the final coal mine reclamation costs. The PUCT also approved the use of a formula-based fuel factor which provides for more timely recovery of fuel costs. The PUCT approved a $19.7 million or 11% reduction in the Company's fixed fuel factor as the initial rate under the approved fuel factor formula. The PUCT also approved an energy efficiency cost-recovery factor that includes the recovery of deferred energy efficiency costs over a three-year period.

Fuel Reconciliation Case (Severed from 2009 Rate Case). Pursuant to the stipulation in Docket No. 37690, a fuel reconciliation component of the rate case was severed and a separate docket, PUCT Docket No. 38361, was established to address one fuel reconciliation issue not settled by the parties. That single issue was a determination of the proper amount of the Four Corners' coal mine final reclamation costs to be recovered from the Company's Texas retail customers. The hearing on the merits of the case was held on August 11, 2010. On November 23, 2010 the Administrative Law Judge (the "ALJ") issued the Proposal for Decision which approved the Company's request. The PUCT issued a final order approving the Proposal for Decision on January 27, 2011.

Fuel and Purchased Power Costs. The Company's actual fuel costs, including purchased power energy costs, are recoverable from its customers. The PUCT has adopted a fuel cost recovery rule ("Texas Fuel Rule") that allows the Company to seek periodic adjustments to its fixed fuel factor. The Company received approval on July 30, 2010 in PUCT Docket No. 37690 (discussed above), to implement a formula to determine its fuel factor. The Company can seek to revise its fixed fuel factor based upon the approved formula at least four months after its last revision except in the month of December. The Texas Fuel Rule requires the Company to request to refund fuel costs in any month when the over-recovery balance exceeds a threshold material amount and it expects fuel costs to continue to be materially over-recovered. The Texas Fuel Rule also permits the Company to seek to surcharge fuel under-recoveries in any month the balance exceeds a threshold material amount and it expects fuel cost recovery to continue to be materially under-recovered. Fuel over and under-recoveries are considered material when they exceed 4% of the previous twelve months' fuel costs. All such fuel revenue and expense activities are subject to periodic final review by the PUCT in fuel reconciliation proceedings.

The Company has filed the following petitions with the PUCT to refund recent fuel cost over-recoveries, due primarily to fluctuations in natural gas markets and consumption levels. The table summarizes the docket number assigned by the PUCT, the dates the Company filed the petitions and the dates a final order was issued by the PUCT approving the refunds to customers. The fuel cost over-recovery periods represent the months in which the over-recoveries took place and the refund periods represent the billing month(s) in which customers received the refund amounts shown, including interest (in thousands):

Docket

No.

Date Filed

Date Approved

Recovery Period

Refund Period

Refund
Amount

37788

December 17, 2009

February 11, 2010

September – November 2009

February 2010

11,800

38253

May 12, 2010

July 15, 2010

December 2009 – March 2010

July – August 2010

11,100

38802

October 20, 2010

December 16, 2010

April – September 2010

December 2010

12,800

39159

February 18, 2011

May 3, 2011

October – December 2010

April 2011

11,800

The Company has filed the following petitions with the PUCT to revise its fixed fuel factor pursuant to the fuel factor formula authorized in PUCT Docket No. 37690:


Docket No.	Date Filed	Date Approved	Increase/(Decrease) in Fuel Factor	Effective Billing Month
38895	November 23, 2010	January 6, 2011	(14.7%)	January 2011
39599	July 15, 2011	July 26, 2011 (1)	9.4%	August 2011

(1)	ALJ approved on an interim basis.

Application for Approval to Revise Energy Efficiency Cost Recovery Factor for 2012. On May 2, 2011, the Company filed with the PUCT an application for approval to revise its energy efficiency cost recovery factor ("EECRF"), which was assigned PUCT Docket No. 39376. A unanimous settlement resolving all issues was filed with the PUCT on July 15, 2011. The settlement allows the Company to recover $8.3 million and supports the Company's request to revise its demand and energy goals and EECRF cost caps as well as the Company's request to increase its 2012 EECRF, effective beginning with the first billing cycle of its January 2012 billing month. The Company expects the PUCT to issue an order approving the settlement at its August 19, 2011 open meeting.

Petition for Approval to Revise Military Base Discount Recovery Factor. On July 14, 2011, the Company filed with the PUCT a petition requesting approval to revise its Military Base Discount Recovery Factor ("MBDRF") tariff to account for under-recovery of discount charges during 2010 and for 2011 discounts. The total requested in the filing is $4.3 million and the case was assigned Tariff Control No. 39590.

Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity ("CCN") for Rio Grande Unit 9. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a petition seeking a CCN to construct an 87 MW natural gas-fired combustion turbine unit at the Company's existing Rio Grande Generating Station in the City of Sunland Park in southeast New Mexico. This case was assigned PUCT Docket No. 38717. A unanimous settlement to approve the CCN was filed on March 2, 2011, and a final order granting the CCN was approved on April 8, 2011.

Project to Investigate Early February 2011 Outages and Curtailments. On February 8, 2011, the PUCT opened Project No. 39134, Investigation into Power Outages in El Paso Electric's Service Territory. In this project, the PUCT is investigating the Company's power plant outages and customer curtailments that occurred February 2-4, 2011, as a result of the extreme cold weather in the El Paso area. There was no accompanying PUCT order for the opening of this project. The PUCT Staff conducted discovery in the investigation. On February 14, 2011, the Company also filed a report on this weather event. On May 13, 2011, the PUCT Staff issued a report stating that, as of then, it had not identified violations of the Texas electric utility regulatory statute or PUCT rules by the Company. The report also stated that the PUCT Staff would continue to monitor the extreme cold weather event results and subsequent forthcoming information as the Company and other regulatory agencies complete their ongoing investigations.

On February 15, 2011, the City Council of El Paso adopted a motion that, upon completion of hearings and investigations concerning the extreme cold weather event, requires the Mayor to call for Special City Council meetings or public hearings, on utility issues related to the weather event.

New Mexico Regulatory Matters

2009 New Mexico Stipulation. On May 29, 2009, the Company filed a general rate case using a test year ended December 31, 2008. The 2009 rate case was docketed as NMPRC Case No. 09-00171-UT. A comprehensive unopposed stipulation (the "2009 New Mexico Stipulation") was reached in this general rate case and filed on October 8, 2009. The 2009 New Mexico Stipulation provided for an increase in New Mexico jurisdictional non-fuel and purchased power base rate revenues of $5.5 million. The new rate structure resulted in net increases in base rates during the peak summer season of May through October and net decreases in base rates during November through April. The 2009 New Mexico Stipulation provided for the revision of depreciation rates for the Palo Verde nuclear generating plant to reflect a 20-year life extension and a revision of depreciation rates for other plant in service. The 2009 New Mexico Stipulation also provided for the continuation of the Company's Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Adjustment Clause ("FPPCAC") without conditions or variance. In addition, it modified the market pricing of capacity and energy provided by Palo Verde Unit 3 using a methodology based upon a previous purchased power contract with Credit Suisse Energy, LLC. On December 10, 2009, the NMPRC issued a final order conditionally approving and clarifying the unopposed stipulation, and the stipulated rates went into effect with January 2010 bills.

Application for Approval to Recover Regulatory Disincentives and Incentives. On August 31, 2010, the Company filed an application for approval of its proposed rate design methodology to recover regulatory disincentives and incentives associated with the Company's energy efficiency and load management programs in New Mexico. On March 18, 2011, the Company entered into an uncontested stipulation which would provide for a rate per kWh of energy efficiency savings that would be recovered through the efficient use of energy rider. A hearing on the uncontested stipulation was held on April 26, 2011 and a final order is expected in the third quarter of 2011.

Application for a CCN for Rio Grande Unit 9. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a petition seeking a CCN to construct an 87 MW natural gas-fired combustion turbine unit at the Company's existing Rio Grande Generating Station in the City of Sunland Park in southeast New Mexico. This case was assigned NMPRC Case No. 10-00301-UT. On March 4, 2011, NMPRC Staff filed testimony in support of the Company's application and no party filed testimony or a position statement opposing the application. On April 13, 2011 an unopposed stipulation was filed in this case seeking approval of a CCN for the Company to construct, own and operate the 87 MW generating unit. A final order on this case approving the CCN was issued on June 23, 2011.

Application for Approval of 2011 Energy Efficiency Plan. On February 15, 2011, the Company filed its Application for Approval of New and Modified Energy Efficiency Programs for 2011 with the NMPRC. On June 22, 2011, parties to this case entered into a partial stipulation, agreeing on all issues, except for a military base free-ridership issue. On June 24, 2011, the New Mexico Attorney General filed a statement in opposition to the proposed partial stipulation. On July 8, 2011, the Company filed its testimony in support of the partial stipulation. A hearing in this case was held on July 27-28, 2011 and a recommended decision from the hearing examiner is expected in the fourth quarter of 2011.

2011 Renewable Procurement Plan Pursuant to the Renewable Energy Act. On July 1, 2011, the Company filed its Application for Approval of its 2011 Renewable Procurement Plan with the NMPRC, which was assigned NMPRC Case No. 11-00263-UT. The filing identified renewable resources intended to meet the Company's Renewable Portfolio Standard ("RPS") requirements in 2012 and 2013. The renewable resources in the 2011 Renewable Procurement Plan which were previously approved by the NMPRC will allow the Company to meet the full RPS requirement of 10 percent of the Company's jurisdictional retail energy sales for 2012 and 2013. The Company's 2011 Plan also addresses the diversity targets in 2012 and 2013 required by NMPRC Rule 572 and demonstrates that the Company will meet those targets. The plan also demonstrates that the Company will meet its solar diversity target in 2012 and comply with the terms of a previously-approved variance for 2011.

Investigation into Rates for Church Customers. On July 12, 2011, the NMPRC initiated an investigation into the rates the Company charges its church customers which were approved in Case No. 09-00171-UT. The investigation, Case No. 11-00276, was ordered to determine whether the Company's rates to its church customers are unjust and unreasonable and should be revised. The Company filed a response on August 1, 2011. The case is pending.

Federal Regulatory Matters

Transmission Dispute with Tucson Electric Power Company ("TEP"). In January 2006, the Company filed a complaint with the FERC to interpret the terms of a Power Exchange and Transmission Agreement (the "Transmission Agreement") entered into with TEP in 1982. TEP filed a complaint with the FERC one day later raising virtually identical issues. TEP claimed that, under the Transmission Agreement, it was entitled to up to 400 MW of firm transmission rights on the Company's transmission system that would enable it to transmit power from the Luna Energy Facility ("LEF") located near Deming, New Mexico to Springerville or Greenlee in Arizona. The Company asserted that TEP's rights under the Transmission Agreement do not include transmission rights necessary to transmit such power as contemplated by TEP and that TEP must acquire any such rights in the open market from the Company at applicable tariff rates or from other transmission providers. On April 24, 2006, the FERC ruled in the Company's favor, finding that TEP does not have transmission rights under the Transmission Agreement to transmit power from the LEF to Arizona. The ruling was based on written evidence presented and without an evidentiary hearing. TEP's request for a rehearing of the FERC's decision was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued October 4, 2006, and hearings on the disputed issues were held before an administrative law judge. In the initial decision dated September 6, 2007, the administrative law judge found that the Transmission Agreement allows TEP to transmit power from the LEF to Arizona but limits that transmission to 200 MW on any segment of the circuit and to non-firm service on the segment from Luna to Greenlee. The Company and TEP filed exceptions to the initial decision.

On November 13, 2008, the FERC issued an order on the initial decision finding that the transmission rights given to TEP in the Transmission Agreement are firm and are not restricted for transmission of power from Springerville as the receipt point to Greenlee as the delivery point. Therefore, pursuant to the order, TEP can use its transmission rights granted under the Transmission Agreement to transmit power from the LEF to either Springerville or Greenlee so long as it transmits no more than 200 MW over all segments at any one time.

The FERC also ordered that the Company refund to TEP all sums with interest that TEP had paid it for transmission under the applicable transmission service agreements since February 2006 for service relating to the LEF. On December 3, 2008, the Company refunded $9.7 million to TEP. The Company had established a reserve for the rate refund of approximately $7.2 million as of September 30, 2008, resulting in a pre-tax charge to earnings of approximately $2.5 million in 2008. The Company also paid TEP interest on the refunded balance of approximately $0.9 million, which was also charged to earnings in 2008. The Company filed a request for rehearing of the FERC's decision on December 15, 2008, seeking reversal of the order on the merits and a return of any refunds made in the interim, as well as compensation for all service that the Company may provide to TEP from the LEF over the Company's transmission system on a going forward basis. On July 7, 2010, the FERC denied the Company's request for rehearing. On July 23, 2010, the Company filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") and on August 18, 2010, TEP filed a motion to intervene in the proceeding. On January 14, 2011, the Company and TEP filed a joint consent motion, asking the Court to hold the proceedings in abeyance while the parties engaged in settlement discussions. The Court granted the motion on January 19, 2011.

On April 26, 2011, TEP and the Company entered into a proposed settlement (subject to FERC approval) to resolve this dispute. The proposed settlement would reduce TEP's transmission rights under the Transmission Agreement from 200 MW to 170 MW and would require TEP to pay the Company a lump sum of $5 million, equivalent to the amount TEP would have paid the Company for 30 MW of transmission from February 1, 2006 through the settlement date, plus interest. Additionally, TEP and the Company will enter into two new firm transmission capacity agreements at applicable tariff rates for a total of 40 MW. The settlement agreement was filed with the FERC on June 24, 2011 and will become effective after (i) the FERC issues a final non-appealable order approving the settlement, and (ii) the FERC issues a final non-appealable order approving a settlement between the Company and Macho Springs Power I, LLC regarding the reimbursement of certain network upgrade costs associated with the interconnection of a wind generating facility to the Company's transmission system. The Company will withdraw its appeal before the Court of Appeals when the settlement agreement becomes effective.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company would record approximately $5.2 million in transmission revenues for the period February 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, including interest income. The Company would share with its customers 25% of the transmission revenues earned before July 1, 2010, or approximately $0.7 million, through a credit to Texas fuel recoveries. The Company estimates that the proposed settlement will also add approximately $0.4 million to its transmission revenues for the remainder of 2011. If the settlement agreement does not become effective and if the Company is unsuccessful in its petition for review at the Court of Appeals, the Company will lose the opportunity to receive compensation from TEP for the disputed transmission service.

In an ancillary proceeding, TEP filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in December 2008, seeking reimbursement for amounts TEP paid a third party transmission provider for purchases of transmission capacity between April 2006 and May 2007, allegedly totaling approximately $1.5 million, plus accrued interest. TEP alleges that the Company was obligated to provide TEP with that transmission capacity without charge under the Transmission Agreement. In September 2009, the Court granted a stay in this suit pending a resolution of the underlying FERC proceeding and any appeal thereof. If the settlement agreement described in the preceding paragraph becomes effective, TEP has agreed to withdraw this complaint.

Inquiry into Early February 2011 Outages and Curtailments. On February 14, 2011, FERC directed its staff to initiate an inquiry into power plant outages and customer curtailments by power generators and gas suppliers in the Southwestern United States, including the Company, in early February 2011, as a result of the extreme cold weather. The inquiry has been assigned Docket No. AD11-9-000. FERC specifically stated that its inquiry is not an enforcement investigation. The agency encouraged its staff to identify the causes of the outages and to determine appropriate responses to prevent such outages in the future. There has been no staff report posted in the docket, and the FERC has not taken any additional action on the matter.