Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Overview There are various claims and lawsuits pending against the Company. The Company is also subject to federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, and is currently participating in the investigation and remediation of several sites. In addition, the Company occasionally enters into financial commitments in connection with its business operations. The Company is also involved in various legal proceedings in the normal course of its business. It is not possible at this time for the Company to determine fully the effect of all litigation and other legal 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. Notwithstanding these facts, the Company has assessed these matters based on current information and made judgments concerning their potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of damages sought, and the probability of success. Such judgments are made with the understanding that the outcome of any litigation, investigation, and other legal proceeding is inherently uncertain. In accordance with GAAP, the Company records liabilities for matters where it is probable a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable. The actual outcomes of the items listed below could ultimately differ from the judgments made and the differences could be material. The Company cannot make any assurances that the amount of reserves or potential insurance coverage will be sufficient to cover the cash obligations that might be incurred as a result of litigation or regulatory proceedings. 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 PNM has a program for funding its share of decommissioning costs for PVNGS. The nuclear decommissioning funding program is invested in equities and fixed income instruments in qualified and non-qualified trusts. PNM funded $2.6 million, $3.0 million, and $3.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009 into the qualified and non-qualified trust funds. The estimated market value of the trusts at December 31, 2011 and 2010 was $168.9 million and $156.9 million. Nuclear Spent Fuel and Waste Disposal Nuclear power plant operators are required to enter into spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is required 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 under the contract. In November 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 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. APS pursued a damages claim for costs incurred through December 2006 in a trial that began in January 2009. In June 2010, the court awarded the PVNGS owners $30.2 million. PNM's $3.1 million share of this amount was recorded in 2010 as a $2.1 million reduction of cost of energy and a $1.0 million reduction of utility plant. As part of the 2010 Electric Rate Case, the NMPRC ordered PNM to refund $1.3 million of the DOE settlement to customers, which was recorded as a regulatory disallowance in 2011. See Note 17. PNM estimates that it will incur approximately $42.8 million (in 2010 dollars) for its share of the costs related to the on-site interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at PVNGS. Such estimate reflects the impact of the extension of the PVNGS operating licenses discussed in Note 14. PNM accrues these costs as a component of fuel expense as the fuel is consumed. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, PNM recorded interim storage costs of $14.5 million and $14.8 million in other deferred credits. The Clean Air Act Regional Haze EPA has established rules addressing regional haze and guidelines for BART determinations. The rules call for all states to establish goals and emission reduction strategies for improving visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. In particular, the rules define how an SO₂ emissions trading program developed by the Western Regional Air Partnership, a voluntary organization of western states, tribes, and federal agencies, can be used by western states. New Mexico will be participating in the SO₂ program, which is a trading program that will be implemented if SO₂ reduction milestones are not met. SJGS Several provisions of the CAA aim to improve visibility in certain national parks and wilderness areas to natural conditions by the year 2064. The regional haze provisions of the CAA require that reasonable progress be made to achieving that goal during planning periods established by the CAA. SJGS is a source that is subject to these statutory obligations to reduce visibility impacts. Pursuant to the CAA, states have the primary role to regulate visibility requirements by promulgating SIPs, and the State of New Mexico submitted its SIP on the two elements of the visibility rules - regional haze and interstate transport - for review by EPA in June 2011. The SIP found that BART to reduce NOx emissions from SJGS is selective non-catalytic reduction (“SNCR”) and requires SJGS to install SNCR on each of its four units. Nevertheless, on August 22, 2011, EPA published its FIP, stating that it was required to do so by virtue of a consent decree it had entered into with an environmental group in litigation concerning the interstate transport requirements of the CAA. The FIP included a regional haze BART determination for SJGS that requires installation of selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) on all four units within five years of the rule's effective date of September 21, 2011. The FIP also requires stringent NOx emission limits. EPA stated that it would review and act on the SIP at some future date. In December 2011, EPA issued a notice of a proposed consent decree to settle litigation with several environmental groups which, if finalized by EPA and approved by the court, would require EPA to review and take action through a proposed rulemaking on New Mexico's regional haze SIP. The comment period for those commenting on the draft consent decree as it relates to the New Mexico SIP expired on February 3, 2012. To date, the consent decree has not been filed with the court. PNM filed a Petition for Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on September 16, 2011, challenging EPA's regional haze FIP decision as arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law. PNM has also asked EPA to reconsider the FIP. Additionally, on October 21, 2011, the Governor of New Mexico and NMED petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review EPA's decision on the same grounds as PNM's challenge and requested EPA to reconsider its decision. These three parties have also asked both EPA and the Tenth Circuit to stay the effective date of the rule. WildEarth Guardians also filed an action to challenge EPA's rule in the Tenth Circuit, seeking to shorten its compliance period from five years to three years. WildEarth Guardians, Dine Citizens against Ruining our Environment, National Parks Conservation Association, New Energy Economy, San Juan Citizens Alliance and Sierra Club intervened in support of EPA in both PNM's challenge and in the case brought by the New Mexico Governor and NMED. PNM has intervened in support of the challenge brought by the New Mexico Governor and NMED. PNM has also intervened in the WildEarth Guardian's action advocating that the five-year compliance period in the FIP be maintained should the FIP stand. The compliance deadline of the FIP requires PNM to take immediate steps to commence installation of SCR. In January 2012, PNM issued an RFP to prospective bidders for the project with bids due in April 2012. PNM estimates that the installation of SCR at SJGS will cost approximately $750 million to $1 billion and installation of SNCR at SJGS will cost about $77 million. PNM's share under either technology is 46.3% based upon its SJGS ownership interest. Operating costs would also increase with the installation of either SCR or SNCR. Unless the decision to install SCR technology within five years is stayed by the EPA or the court, PNM estimates that $21.3 million and $91.5 million of its share of the total project costs will need to be incurred in 2012 and 2013, even though the legal challenges to the EPA's decision have not be decided. PNM anticipates filing in May 2012 for an amendment to its air permit for SJGS that would be required for the installation of either SCR or SNCR technology. PNM anticipates filing a request with the NMPRC in mid-2012 for authority to install the SCR technology and to recover SCR costs in rates charged to customers. PNM will seek recovery from its ratepayers for all costs that may be incurred as a result of the CAA requirements. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters or what, if any, additional pollution control equipment will be required at SJGS. If additional equipment is necessary and/or final requirements result in additional operating costs being incurred, PNM believes that its access to the capital markets is sufficient to be able to finance the installation. It is possible that requirements to comply with the final BART determinations, combined with the financial impact of possible future climate change regulation or legislation, if any, other environmental regulations, the result of litigation, and other business considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of SJGS or the ability of individual participants to continue participation in the plant. Four Corners On October 6, 2010, EPA issued its proposed regional haze determination of BART for Four Corners. The rule, as proposed, would require the installation of SCR as post-combustion controls on each of Units 1-5 at Four Corners to reduce NOx emissions. PNM estimates its total costs could be up to $69.0 million for post-combustion controls at Four Corners Units 4 and 5. PNM has no ownership interest in Four Corners Units 1, 2, and 3. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that are ultimately incurred. Following EPA's issuance of its proposed BART, APS submitted a letter to EPA proposing to shutdown Four Corners Units 1, 2, and 3 by 2014 and to install post-combustion pollution controls for NOx on Units 4 and 5 by the end of 2018, provided that EPA agrees to a resolution of Four Corners' obligations or liability, if any, under the regional haze and reasonably attributable visibility impairment programs, the NSR program, and NSPS programs of the CAA. In response to APS's proposal, EPA issued a Supplemental Notice Requesting Comment in February 2011 and proposed to find that an alternative emission control strategy, largely based upon APS's proposal, would achieve more progress than EPA's October 2010 BART proposal. APS continues to work with EPA to resolve these issues. The Four Corners participants' obligations to comply with EPA's final BART determinations, coupled with the financial impact of possible future climate change regulation or legislation, other environmental regulations, the result of the lawsuit mentioned above, and other business considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of Four Corners or the ability of individual participants to continue their participation in Four Corners. PNM is continuing to evaluate the impacts of EPA's proposed BART determination for Four Corners. As proposed, the participant owners of Four Corners will have five years after EPA issues its final determination to achieve compliance with the BART requirements. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. SCE, a participant in Four Corners, has indicated that certain California legislation may prohibit it from making emission control expenditures at the coal-fired plant. APS and SCE entered into an asset purchase agreement, providing for the purchase by APS of SCE's 48% interest in each of Units 4 and 5 of Four Corners. Completion of the purchase by APS, which is expected to occur in the second half of 2012, is subject to the receipt of various regulatory approvals. Closing is also conditioned on the execution of a new coal supply contract for the lease renewal period described in Note 14 and other conditions. APS has announced that, if APS's purchase of SCE's interests in Units 4 and 5 at Four Corners is consummated, it will shutdown Units 1, 2, and 3 at the plant. SJGS Operating Permit Challenge In November 2010, WildEarth Guardians and others filed a petition with the EPA objecting to NMED's proposed renewal of the SJGS operating permit. NMED issued the renewed permit on January 24, 2011. On February 16, 2012, EPA issued an order granting five of the seven objections raised by the petitioners. The order requires NMED to provide further explanation or clarification in the record and/or consider permit modifications in connection with some of the objections. NMED has 90 days to respond to the order. PNM is evaluating the order and believes the issues raised are based either on incorrect information or on a perceived inadequacy in the permitting record. As a result, PNM believes the objections can be readily resolved. Issuance of the order by EPA does not impact PNM's ability to operate the plant. Ozone Non-Attainment In January 2010, EPA announced it would strengthen the 8-hour ozone standard by setting a new standard in a range of 0.060-0.070 parts per million (“ppm”). EPA had intended to establish the new standard by July 31, 2011. However, in September 2011, President Obama requested that the EPA administrator withdraw the agency's proposed rule that would have replaced the existing ozone national ambient air quality standard (“NAAQS”). The President in his release stated that work is already underway to reconsider the ozone standard, with proposed revisions expected in the fall of 2013 and a final standard published by 2014. Depending upon where the standard for ozone is set, San Juan County, where SJGS is situated, could be designated as not attaining the standard for ozone. If that were to occur, NMED would have responsibility for bringing the county into compliance and would look at all sources of NOx and volatile organic compounds since these are the pollutants that form ground-level ozone. As a result, SJGS could be required to put on additional NOx controls. In addition, other counties in New Mexico, including Bernalillo County, may be designated as non-attainment. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter, the impact of other potential environmental mitigations, or if additional NOx controls would be required as a result of ozone non-attainment designation. Citizen Suit Under the Clean Air Act The operations of the SJGS are covered by a Consent Decree with the Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club and with the NMED that includes stipulated penalties for non-compliance with specified emissions limits. Stipulated penalty amounts are placed in escrow on a quarterly basis pending review of SJGS's emissions performance. Over the past several years, PNM has also submitted reports addressing mercury and NOx emission controls for SJGS as required by the Consent Decree. Plaintiffs and NMED rejected PNM's reports. PNM disputes the validity of the rejection of the reports. In May 2010, PNM filed a petition with the federal district court seeking a judicial determination on the dispute relating to PNM's mercury controls. NMED and plaintiffs seek to require PNM to implement additional mercury controls. PNM estimates the implementation would increase annual mercury control costs for the entire station by as much as $5.4 million (for a total annual mercury control cost of $6.0 million). The court has appointed a special master to evaluate the technical arguments in the case. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Navajo Nation Environmental Issues Four Corners is located on the Navajo Reservation and is held under an easement granted by the federal government as well as a lease from the Navajo Nation. 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. The District Court stayed these proceedings pursuant to a request by the parties and the parties are seeking to negotiate a settlement. 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 courts 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. The Company cannot currently predict the outcome of these matters or the range of their potential impacts. Section 114 Request In April 2009, APS received a request from EPA under Section 114 of the CAA seeking detailed information regarding projects at and operations of Four Corners. EPA has taken the position that many utilities have made physical or operational changes at their plants that should have triggered additional regulatory requirements under the NSR provisions of the CAA. Other electric utilities have received and responded to similar Section 114 requests, and several of them have been subject to notices of violation and lawsuits by EPA. APS has responded to EPA's request. PNM is currently unable to predict the timing or content of EPA's response, if any, or any resulting actions. Four Corners New Source Review Following two NOIs to sue, EarthJustice filed a lawsuit in October 2011 in the United States District Court for New Mexico against APS and the other Four Corners participants, except PNM, alleging violations of the PSD provisions of the CAA. EarthJustice filed suit against PNMR, which is not a Four Corners participant. Among other things, the plaintiffs seek to have the court enjoin operations at Four Corners until any required PSD permits are issued and order the payment of civil penalties, including a beneficial mitigation project. In January 2012, following a third NOI to sue, EarthJustice filed its First Amended Complaint, naming PNM as a party instead of PNMR. In addition to the allegations of its original complaint, EarthJustice alleged NSPS violations. PNM was served with the amended complaint on January 17, 2012. APS is evaluating the lawsuit. The Company cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact. Endangered Species Act In January 2011, the Center for Biological Diversity, Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, and San Juan Citizens Alliance filed a lawsuit against the OSM and the DOI, alleging that OSM failed to engage in mandatory Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service prior to authorizing the renewal of an operating permit for the mine that serves Four Corners. The lawsuit alleges that activities at the mine, including mining and the disposal of coal combustion residue, will adversely affect several endangered species and their critical habitats. The lawsuit requests the court to vacate and remand the mining permit and enjoin all activities carried out under the permit until OSM has complied with the ESA. Neither PNM nor APS is a party to the lawsuit. The lawsuit has been stayed pending a decision by the court on a motion to dismiss filed by the Navajo Nation, another intervenor. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Cooling Water Intake Structures EPA issued its proposed cooling water intake structures rule in April 2011, which would provide national standards for certain cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and other facilities under the Clean Water Act. The proposed standards are intended 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). The proposed rule would require facilities such as Four Corners and SJGS to either demonstrate that impingement mortality at its cooling water intakes does not exceed a specified rate or reduce the flow at those structures to less than a specified velocity and to take certain protective measures with respect to impinged fish. To minimize entrainment mortality, the proposed rule would also require these facilities to either meet the definition of a closed cycle recirculating cooling system or conduct a “structured site-specific analysis” to determine what site-specific controls, if any, should be required. EPA is expected to issue a final rule by July 2012. The proposed rule requires existing facilities to comply with the impingement mortality requirements as soon as possible, but no later than eight years after the effective date of the rule, and to comply with the entrainment requirements as soon as possible under a schedule of compliance established by the permitting authority. PNM and APS continue to follow the rulemaking and are performing analyses to determine the potential costs of compliance with the proposed rule. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or a range of the potential costs of compliance. Santa Fe Generating Station PNM and the NMED are parties to agreements under which PNM installed a remediation system to treat water from a City of Santa Fe municipal supply well, an extraction well, and monitoring wells to address gasoline contamination in the groundwater at the site of the former Santa Fe Generating Station and service center. PNM believes the observed groundwater contamination originated from off-site sources but agreed to operate the remediation facilities until the groundwater meets applicable federal and state standards or until the NMED determines that additional remediation is not required, whichever is earlier. The municipal well continues to operate and meets federal drinking water standards. PNM is not able to assess the duration of this project. The Superfund Oversight Section of the NMED has conducted multiple investigations into the chlorinated solvent plume in the vicinity of the site of the former Santa Fe Generating Station. In February 2008, a NMED site inspection report was submitted to EPA, which states that neither the source nor extent of contamination has been determined and also states that the source may not be the former Santa Fe Generating Station. The NMED investigation is ongoing. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Coal Combustion Waste Disposal Regulation CCBs consisting of fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum from SJGS are currently disposed of in the surface mine pits adjacent to the plant. SJGS does not operate any CCB impoundments. The Mining and Minerals Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department currently regulates mine placement of ash with federal oversight by the OSM. APS disposes of CCBs in ash ponds and dry storage areas at Four Corners, and also sells a portion of its fly ash for beneficial uses, such as a constituent in concrete production. Ash management at Four Corners is regulated by EPA and the New Mexico State Engineer's Office. In June 2010, EPA published a proposed rule that includes two options for waste designation of coal ash in the Federal Register. One option is to regulate CCBs as a hazardous waste, which would allow EPA to create a comprehensive federal program for waste management and disposal of CCBs. The other option is to regulate CCBs as a non-hazardous waste, which would provide EPA with the authority to develop performance standards for waste management facilities handling the CCBs and would be enforced primarily by state authorities or through citizen suits. Both options allow for continued use of CCBs in beneficial applications. EPA's proposal does not address the placement of CCBs in surface mine pits for reclamation. A final rule regarding waste designation for coal ash is not expected from EPA before mid to late 2012. An OSM CCB rulemaking team has been formed to develop a proposed rule. OSM's draft rulemaking schedule targets an April 2012 publication in the Federal Register. In January 2012, several environmental groups, including Sierra Club, submitted a NOI to sue to EPA under the RCRA. The groups intend to file a citizen suit claiming that EPA has failed to review and revise RCRA's regulations with respect to CCBs. The groups allege that EPA has already determined that revisions to the CCBs regulations are necessary. They also claim that EPA now has a non-discretionary duty to revise the regulations. The environmental groups seek to ask a court to direct EPA to complete its review of the regulation of CCBs and a hazardous waste analytical procedure as soon as possible and to determine whether revisions of such regulations are warranted. PNM and industry groups are evaluating the potential implications of the threatened suit on EPA's rulemaking agenda for CCBs. PNM advocates for the non-hazardous regulation of CCBs. PNM cannot predict the outcome of EPA's or OSM's proposed rulemaking regarding CCB regulation, including mine placement of CCBs, or whether these actions will have a material impact on its operations, financial position, or cash flows. Sierra Club Allegations In December 2009, PNM and PNMR received a NOI to sue under RCRA from the Sierra Club (“RCRA Notice”). The RCRA Notice was also sent to all SJGS owners, to SJCC, which operates the San Juan Mine that supplies coal to SJGS, and to BHP. Additionally, PNM was informed that SJCC and BHP received a separate NOI to sue under the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act ("SMCRA") from the Sierra Club. In April 2010, the Sierra Club filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against PNM and PNMR. Also named in the lawsuit were SJCC and BHP. Sierra Club filed an amended complaint in July 2010, correcting technical deficiencies in the original complaint. In the amended complaint, Sierra Club alleges that activities at SJGS and the San Juan Mine are causing imminent and substantial harm to the environment, including ground and surface water in the region, and that placement of CCBs at the San Juan Mine constitutes "open dumping" in violation of RCRA. The suit also includes claims against SJCC and BHP under SMCRA. The complaint requests judgment for injunctive relief, payment of civil penalties, and an award of plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs. The parties have agreed to a stay of the action, which the Court entered in August 2010, to allow the parties to try to address Sierra Club's concerns. If the parties are unable to settle the matter, PNM is prepared to aggressively defend its position in the RCRA litigation. PNM and PNMR do not believe the outcome of this matter will have a material impact. Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAPs”) Rulemaking In December 2011, the EPA issued its final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”). MATS is designed to reduce emissions of heavy metals, including mercury, arsenic, chromium and nickel, as well as acid gases, including hydrochloric and hydrofluoric gases, from coal and oil-fired electric generating units with a capacity of at least 25 MW. Existing facilities will generally have up to four years to demonstrate compliance with the new rule. PNM's assessment of MATS indicates that the control equipment currently used at SJGS allows the plant to meet the emission standards set forth in the rule although the plant may be required to install additional monitoring equipment. With regard to mercury, stack testing performed for EPA during the MATS rulemaking process showed that SJGS achieved a mercury removal rate of 99% or greater. APS will conduct testing to determine what additional controls, if any, will be required at Four Corners. If additional controls are required, the costs are not expected to be material. Other Commitments and Contingencies Coal Supply The coal requirements for SJGS are being supplied by SJCC, a wholly owned subsidiary of BHP. In addition to coal delivered to meet the current needs of SJGS, PNM prepays SJCC for certain coal mined but not yet delivered to the plant site. SJCC holds certain federal, state, and private coal leases and has an underground coal sales agreement to supply processed coal for operation of SJGS through 2017. Under the coal sales agreement, SJCC is reimbursed for all costs for mining and delivering the coal, including an allocated portion of administrative costs, and receives a return on its investment. BHP Minerals International, Inc. has guaranteed the obligations of SJCC under the coal agreement. The coal agreement contemplates the delivery of coal that would supply substantially all the requirements of the SJGS through approximately 2017. APS purchases all of Four Corners' coal requirements from a supplier with a long-term lease of coal reserves with the Navajo Nation. The Four Corners coal contract runs through 2016 with pricing determined using an escalating base-price. APS is currently in discussions with the coal supplier regarding post-2016 coal supply for Four Corners. In 2010, PNM updated its study of the final reclamation costs for both the surface mines that previously provided coal to SJGS and the current underground mine providing coal and revised its estimates of the final reclamation costs. The estimate for decommissioning the Four Corners mine was also revised in 2010. Based on the most recent estimates, payments for mine reclamation, in future dollars, are estimated to be $54.1 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $21.7 million for the underground mine at SJGS as of December 31, 2011. PNM made payments against the surface mine liability of $1.9 million, $5.1 million, and $7.6 million during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, liabilities, in current dollars, of $26.5 million and $25.0 million for surface mine reclamation and $4.2 million and $2.8 million for underground mining activities were recorded in other deferred credits. PNM collects a provision for mine reclamation costs in its rates. The NMPRC has capped the amount that can be collected for final reclamation of the surface mines at $100.0 million. Previously, PNM recorded a regulatory asset for the amount of surface mine reclamation costs to be collected from ratepayers, limited by the amount of the cap. If future estimates increase the liability for surface mine reclamation, the excess would be expensed at that time. San Juan Underground Mine Fire Incident On September 9, 2011, a fire was discovered at the underground mine owned and operated by SJCC that provides coal for SJGS. The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) was notified of the incident and has since been on-site. On September 12, 2011, SJCC informed PNM that the fire was extinguished and continues to report that all measurements from the area of the fire continue to suggest the fire is extinguished. However, MSHA required sealing the incident area and confirmation of a noncombustible environment before allowing re-entry of the sealed area. SJCC informed PNM that MSHA approved a sealing plan on October 7, 2011. SJCC has indicated to PNM that it believes the mine's longwall equipment has experienced only minor damage, if any, and currently estimates being able to restart longwall mining operations in early May 2012. However, if the longwall mining operation is shut down longer than currently anticipated by SJCC, PNM and the other owners of SJGS would need to consider alternatives for operating SJGS, including running at less than full capacity or shutting down one or more units, the impacts of which cannot be determined at the current time. In late February 2012, SJCC began the process of re-entering the sealed portion of the mine. Although no unanticipated conditions have been encountered to date, a complete assessment of the incident site and the longwall mining equipment cannot be made until full access is made to the sealed area. PNM continues to actively monitor developments at the mine and evaluate the availability of coal supply. As of September 9, 2011, there were inventories of previously mined coal available to supply the fuel requirements of SJGS for approximately eight and one-half months at forecasted consumption before the disruption. Production from continuous miner sections of the mine was re-started on November 19, 2011 and coal sourced from other mines is being considered to supplement inventories. SJCC has also reported it is implementing cost savings measures during the mine disruption. PNM is also working with SJCC to identify cost-saving opportunities to mitigate the impact of the incident. PNM anticipates that as the cost of the mine recovery flows through the cost-reimbursable component of the coal supply agreement, it would recover through its FPPAC the portion of such costs attributable to its customers subject to New Mexico regulation. The staff of the NMPRC has requested that PNM provide information segregating the impacts of this incident on the FPPAC. On February 27, 2012, PNM made a filing with the NMPRC, which reflects a preliminary estimate that this incident increased the deferral under the FPPAC by $14.5 million. PNM is unable at this time to predict when operations will resume at the mine. Based on information PNM has received from SJCC to date, PNM does not expect the mine fire to have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows due to the inventories of previously mined coal available to supply SJGS. PVNGS Liability and Insurance Matters The PVNGS participants have insurance for public liability exposure for a nuclear incident totaling $12.6 billion per occurrence. Commercial insurance carriers provide $375 million and $12.2 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 assessment per incident for all three units is $36.0 million, with an annual payment limitation of $5.4 million. The PVNGS participants maintain “all risk” (including nuclear hazards) insurance for damage to, and decontamination of, property at PVNGS in the aggregate amount of $2.75 billion, a substantial portion of which must first be applied to stabilization and decontamination. These coverages are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (“NEIL”). If NEIL's losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, PNM is subject to retrospective assessments of up to $5.8 million for each retrospective assessment declared by NEIL's Board of Directors. The insurance coverage discussed in this and the previous paragraph is subject to policy conditions and exclusions. Natural Gas Supply PNM Electric procures gas supplies for its power plants from third-party sources and contracts with third party transportation providers. PNM Gas contracted for the purchase of gas primarily to serve its retail customers. The majority of these contracts were short-term in nature. The price of gas was a pass-through, whereby PNM Gas recovered 100% of its cost of gas. As discussed in Note 2, PNM completed the sale of PNM Gas on January 30, 2009 at which time all commitments for PNM Gas future gas purchases were assumed by the buyer. Water Supply Because of New Mexico's arid climate and periodic drought conditions, there is concern in New Mexico about the use of water, including that used for power generation. PNM has secured groundwater rights in connection with the existing plants at Reeves Station, Delta, Valencia, Afton, Luna, and Lordsburg. Water availability does not appear to be an issue for these plants at this time. PNM, APS, and BHP have undertaken activities to secure additional water supplies for SJGS, Four Corners, and related mines to accommodate the possibility of inadequate precipitation in coming years. Since 2004, PNM has entered into agreements for voluntary sharing of the impacts of water shortages with tribes and other water users in the San Juan basin. The current agreements run through December 31, 2012 and renewals are currently being negotiated. In addition, in the case of water shortage, PNM, APS, and BHP have reached agreement with the Jicarilla Apache Nation on a long-term supplemental contract relating to water for SJGS and Four Corners that runs through 2016. Although the Company does not believe that its operations will be materially affected by drought conditions at this time, it cannot forecast the weather or its ramifications, or how policy, regulations, and legislation may impact the Company should water shortages occur in the future. In April 2010, APS signed an agreement on behalf of the PVNGS participants with five cities to provide cooling water essential to power production at PVNGS for the next forty years. PVNGS Water Supply Litigation In 1986 an action commenced regarding the rights of APS and the other PVNGS participants to the use of groundwater and effluent at PVNGS. APS filed claims that dispute the court's jurisdiction over PVNGS' groundwater rights and their contractual rights to effluent relating to PVNGS and, alternatively, seek confirmation of those rights. In 1999, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a decision finding that certain groundwater rights may be available to the federal government and Indian 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 New Mexico District Court to adjudicate all water rights in the San Juan River Stream System. PNM was made a defendant in the litigation in 1976. The action is expected to adjudicate water rights used at Four Corners and SJGS. In 2005, the Navajo Nation and various parties announced a settlement of the Navajo Nation's surface water rights. In March 2009, President Obama signed legislation confirming the settlement with the Navajo Nation. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Navajo water rights would be settled and finally determined by entry by the court of two proposed adjudication decrees. The court has ordered that settlement of the Navajo Nation's claims under the settlement agreement and entry of the proposed decrees be heard in an expedited proceeding. PNM's water rights in the San Juan Basin may be affected by the rights recognized in the settlement agreement as being owned by the Navajo Nation (which comprise a significant portion of water available from sources on the San Juan River and in the San Juan Basin). Therefore, PNM has elected to participate in this proceeding. The Company 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. Conflicts at San Juan Mine Involving Oil and Gas Leaseholders SJCC, through leases with the federal government and the State of New Mexico, owns coal interests with respect to the San Juan underground mine. Certain gas producers have leases in the area of the underground coal mine and have asserted claims against SJCC that its coal mining activities are interfering with gas production. SJCC has reached settlement with several gas leaseholders and has had success in court in defeating the claims of other claimants. Several other claims and potential claimants remain. PNM cannot predict the outcome of existing or future disputes between SJCC and gas leaseholders or the range of potential outcomes. Republic Savings Bank Litigation In 1992, an inactive subsidiary of PNMR filed suit against the federal government in the United States Court of Claims, alleging breach of contract arising from the seizure of Republic Savings Bank (“RSB”). RSB was seized and liquidated after federal legislation prohibited certain accounting practices previously authorized by contracts with the federal government. In January 2008, the court awarded the plaintiffs damages in the amount of $14.9 million. The federal government appealed this matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and plaintiffs cross-appealed. On October 21, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion, affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the Court of Claims, resulting in an award to the plaintiffs of $9.7 million. The appeal period expired in January 2010. A final judgment order was entered for $9.7 million, which amount was received in April 2010. PNM recorded the amount, net of legal expenses of $1.2 million, as other income in 2010. Western United States Wholesale Power Market Various circumstances, including electric power supply shortages, weather conditions, gas supply costs, transmission constraints, and alleged market manipulation by certain sellers, resulted in the well-publicized California and Western markets energy crisis of 2000-2001 and the bankruptcy filings of the Cal PX and PG&E. As a result of the conditions in the Western markets between late-2000 and mid-2003, FERC, the California Attorney General, and private parties (collectively, the “California Parties”) initiated investigations, litigation, and other proceedings relevant to PNM and other sellers in the Western markets at FERC and in both California State and Federal District Courts. These sought a determination whether sellers of wholesale electric energy during the crisis period, including PNM, should be ordered to pay monetary refunds to buyers of such energy. PNM participated in these proceedings at FERC, the Federal District Courts, and the Ninth Circuit, including filing appeals to that court. In December 2009, PNM and the California Parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all remaining claims against PNM. A Settlement Agreement was signed in February 2010 and approved by FERC in April 2010. In the settlement, PNM paid the California Parties $45.0 million, consisting of the assignment of PNM receivables plus interest as of December 31, 2009 from the Cal ISO and the Cal PX in the amount of $13.1 million plus a cash payment of $31.9 million. In exchange, the California Parties released PNM from claims arising from the California energy crisis of 2000 and 2001. PNM recorded the settlement at December 31, 2009. PNM expressly denied any wrongdoing or culpability with respect to the claims against it and, in entering into the settlement, did not admit any fault or liability. Complaint Against Southwestern Public Service Company In September 2005, PNM filed a complaint under the Federal Power Act against SPS. PNM argued that SPS had been overcharging PNM for deliveries of energy through its fuel cost adjustment clause practices. PNM also intervened in a proceeding brought by other customers raising similar arguments relating to SPS' fuel cost adjustment clause practices (the “Golden Spread proceeding”). In April 2008, FERC issued its order in the Golden Spread proceeding. FERC affirmed the decision of an ALJ that SPS violated its fuel cost adjustment clause tariffs. However, FERC shortened the refund period applicable to the violation of the fuel cost adjustment clause issues. PNM and SPS have filed petitions for rehearing and clarification of the scope of the remedies that were ordered and reversal of various rulings in the order. FERC has not yet acted upon the requests for rehearing or clarification and they remain pending further decision. PNM cannot predict the final outcome of the case at FERC or the range of possible outcomes. Begay v. PNM et al A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities in February 2009 in the United States District Court in Albuquerque. Plaintiffs 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. Plaintiffs, including an allottee association, make broad, general assertions that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees 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 plaintiffs, who have sued the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, seek a constructive trust. They have also included a breach of trust claim against the United States and its Secretary of the Interior. PNM and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss this action. In March 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking redress in federal court. In May 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), which was denied by the BIA Regional Director. In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional Director's decision to the DOI Board of Appeals. The appeal has been fully briefed and is pending. PNM is participating in order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way implicated in the appeal. PNM cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding or the range of potential outcomes at this time. Transmission Issues In April 2010, Cargill Power Markets, LLC (“Cargill”) filed a complaint with FERC, asserting that PNM improperly processed its transmission service queue and unfairly invalidated a transmission service request by Cargill. In July 2010, FERC issued an order establishing a schedule for hearing and settlement procedures. In its order, FERC determined that PNM had improperly invalidated a single Cargill transmission service request submitted in February 2008 and set the issue for hearing to determine an appropriate remedy. In September 2010, FERC granted rehearing for further consideration. In January 2011, PNM and Cargill filed a settlement agreement with FERC in which PNM agreed to pay Cargill $0.2 million and put Cargill's transmission service request back into the queue. The settlement also left Cargill's and PNM's rehearing requests in place before FERC. One intervenor in the proceeding contested the settlement. In December 2011, the Commission issued an order approving the settlement as filed but requiring a compliance filing to modify the standard of review for third parties and FERC. PNM is unable to predict the final outcome of this matter at FERC.

Commitments and Contingencies

Overview

There are various claims and lawsuits pending against the Company. The Company is also subject to federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, and is currently participating in the investigation and remediation of several sites. In addition, the Company occasionally enters into financial commitments in connection with its business operations. The Company is also involved in various legal proceedings in the normal course of its business. It is not possible at this time for the Company to determine fully the effect of all litigation and other legal 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. Notwithstanding these facts, the Company has assessed these matters based on current information and made judgments concerning their potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of damages sought, and the probability of success. Such judgments are made with the understanding that the outcome of any litigation, investigation, and other legal proceeding is inherently uncertain. In accordance with GAAP, the Company records liabilities for matters where it is probable a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable. The actual outcomes of the items listed below could ultimately differ from the judgments made and the differences could be material. The Company cannot make any assurances that the amount of reserves or potential insurance coverage will be sufficient to cover the cash obligations that might be incurred as a result of litigation or regulatory proceedings. 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

PNM has a program for funding its share of decommissioning costs for PVNGS. The nuclear decommissioning funding program is invested in equities and fixed income instruments in qualified and non-qualified trusts. PNM funded $2.6 million, $3.0 million, and $3.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009 into the qualified and non-qualified trust funds. The estimated market value of the trusts at December 31, 2011 and 2010 was $168.9 million and $156.9 million.

Nuclear Spent Fuel and Waste Disposal

Nuclear power plant operators are required to enter into spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE, whereby the DOE is required 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 under the contract. In November 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 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. APS pursued a damages claim for costs incurred through December 2006 in a trial that began in January 2009. In June 2010, the court awarded the PVNGS owners $30.2 million. PNM's $3.1 million share of this amount was recorded in 2010 as a $2.1 million reduction of cost of energy and a $1.0 million reduction of utility plant. As part of the 2010 Electric Rate Case, the NMPRC ordered PNM to refund $1.3 million of the DOE settlement to customers, which was recorded as a regulatory disallowance in 2011. See Note 17. PNM estimates that it will incur approximately $42.8 million (in 2010 dollars) for its share of the costs related to the on-site interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at PVNGS. Such estimate reflects the impact of the extension of the PVNGS operating licenses discussed in Note 14. PNM accrues these costs as a component of fuel expense as the fuel is consumed. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, PNM recorded interim storage costs of $14.5 million and $14.8 million in other deferred credits.

The Clean Air Act

Regional Haze

EPA has established rules addressing regional haze and guidelines for BART determinations. The rules call for all states to establish goals and emission reduction strategies for improving visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. In particular, the rules define how an SO₂ emissions trading program developed by the Western Regional Air Partnership, a voluntary organization of western states, tribes, and federal agencies, can be used by western states. New Mexico will be participating in the SO₂ program, which is a trading program that will be implemented if SO₂ reduction milestones are not met.

SJGS

Several provisions of the CAA aim to improve visibility in certain national parks and wilderness areas to natural conditions by the year 2064. The regional haze provisions of the CAA require that reasonable progress be made to achieving that goal during planning periods established by the CAA. SJGS is a source that is subject to these statutory obligations to reduce visibility impacts.

Pursuant to the CAA, states have the primary role to regulate visibility requirements by promulgating SIPs, and the State of New Mexico submitted its SIP on the two elements of the visibility rules - regional haze and interstate transport - for review by EPA in June 2011. The SIP found that BART to reduce NOx emissions from SJGS is selective non-catalytic reduction (“SNCR”) and requires SJGS to install SNCR on each of its four units. Nevertheless, on August 22, 2011, EPA published its FIP, stating that it was required to do so by virtue of a consent decree it had entered into with an environmental group in litigation concerning the interstate transport requirements of the CAA. The FIP included a regional haze BART determination for SJGS that requires installation of selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) on all four units within five years of the rule's effective date of September 21, 2011. The FIP also requires stringent NOx emission limits. EPA stated that it would review and act on the SIP at some future date.

In December 2011, EPA issued a notice of a proposed consent decree to settle litigation with several environmental groups which, if finalized by EPA and approved by the court, would require EPA to review and take action through a proposed rulemaking on New Mexico's regional haze SIP. The comment period for those commenting on the draft consent decree as it relates to the New Mexico SIP expired on February 3, 2012. To date, the consent decree has not been filed with the court.

PNM filed a Petition for Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on September 16, 2011, challenging EPA's regional haze FIP decision as arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law. PNM has also asked EPA to reconsider the FIP. Additionally, on October 21, 2011, the Governor of New Mexico and NMED petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review EPA's decision on the same grounds as PNM's challenge and requested EPA to reconsider its decision. These three parties have also asked both EPA and the Tenth Circuit to stay the effective date of the rule. WildEarth Guardians also filed an action to challenge EPA's rule in the Tenth Circuit, seeking to shorten its compliance period from five years to three years. WildEarth Guardians, Dine Citizens against Ruining our Environment, National Parks Conservation Association, New Energy Economy, San Juan Citizens Alliance and Sierra Club intervened in support of EPA in both PNM's challenge and in the case brought by the New Mexico Governor and NMED. PNM has intervened in support of the challenge brought by the New Mexico Governor and NMED. PNM has also intervened in the WildEarth Guardian's action advocating that the five-year compliance period in the FIP be maintained should the FIP stand.

The compliance deadline of the FIP requires PNM to take immediate steps to commence installation of SCR. In January 2012, PNM issued an RFP to prospective bidders for the project with bids due in April 2012. PNM estimates that the installation of SCR at SJGS will cost approximately $750 million to $1 billion and installation of SNCR at SJGS will cost about $77 million. PNM's share under either technology is 46.3% based upon its SJGS ownership interest. Operating costs would also increase with the installation of either SCR or SNCR. Unless the decision to install SCR technology within five years is stayed by the EPA or the court, PNM estimates that $21.3 million and $91.5 million of its share of the total project costs will need to be incurred in 2012 and 2013, even though the legal challenges to the EPA's decision have not be decided. PNM anticipates filing in May 2012 for an amendment to its air permit for SJGS that would be required for the installation of either SCR or SNCR technology. PNM anticipates filing a request with the NMPRC in mid-2012 for authority to install the SCR technology and to recover SCR costs in rates charged to customers.

PNM will seek recovery from its ratepayers for all costs that may be incurred as a result of the CAA requirements. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters or what, if any, additional pollution control equipment will be required at SJGS. If additional equipment is necessary and/or final requirements result in additional operating costs being incurred, PNM believes that its access to the capital markets is sufficient to be able to finance the installation. It is possible that requirements to comply with the final BART determinations, combined with the financial impact of possible future climate change regulation or legislation, if any, other environmental regulations, the result of litigation, and other business considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of SJGS or the ability of individual participants to continue participation in the plant.

Four Corners

On October 6, 2010, EPA issued its proposed regional haze determination of BART for Four Corners. The rule, as proposed, would require the installation of SCR as post-combustion controls on each of Units 1-5 at Four Corners to reduce NOx emissions. PNM estimates its total costs could be up to $69.0 million for post-combustion controls at Four Corners Units 4 and 5. PNM has no ownership interest in Four Corners Units 1, 2, and 3. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that are ultimately incurred.

Following EPA's issuance of its proposed BART, APS submitted a letter to EPA proposing to shutdown Four Corners Units 1, 2, and 3 by 2014 and to install post-combustion pollution controls for NOx on Units 4 and 5 by the end of 2018, provided that EPA agrees to a resolution of Four Corners' obligations or liability, if any, under the regional haze and reasonably attributable visibility impairment programs, the NSR program, and NSPS programs of the CAA.

In response to APS's proposal, EPA issued a Supplemental Notice Requesting Comment in February 2011 and proposed to find that an alternative emission control strategy, largely based upon APS's proposal, would achieve more progress than EPA's October 2010 BART proposal.

APS continues to work with EPA to resolve these issues. The Four Corners participants' obligations to comply with EPA's final BART determinations, coupled with the financial impact of possible future climate change regulation or legislation, other environmental regulations, the result of the lawsuit mentioned above, and other business considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of Four Corners or the ability of individual participants to continue their participation in Four Corners.

PNM is continuing to evaluate the impacts of EPA's proposed BART determination for Four Corners. As proposed, the participant owners of Four Corners will have five years after EPA issues its final determination to achieve compliance with the BART requirements. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.

SCE, a participant in Four Corners, has indicated that certain California legislation may prohibit it from making emission control expenditures at the coal-fired plant. APS and SCE entered into an asset purchase agreement, providing for the purchase by APS of SCE's 48% interest in each of Units 4 and 5 of Four Corners. Completion of the purchase by APS, which is expected to occur in the second half of 2012, is subject to the receipt of various regulatory approvals. Closing is also conditioned on the execution of a new coal supply contract for the lease renewal period described in Note 14 and other conditions. APS has announced that, if APS's purchase of SCE's interests in Units 4 and 5 at Four Corners is consummated, it will shutdown Units 1, 2, and 3 at the plant.

SJGS Operating Permit Challenge

In November 2010, WildEarth Guardians and others filed a petition with the EPA objecting to NMED's proposed renewal of the SJGS operating permit. NMED issued the renewed permit on January 24, 2011. On February 16, 2012, EPA issued an order granting five of the seven objections raised by the petitioners. The order requires NMED to provide further explanation or clarification in the record and/or consider permit modifications in connection with some of the objections. NMED has 90 days to respond to the order. PNM is evaluating the order and believes the issues raised are based either on incorrect information or on a perceived inadequacy in the permitting record. As a result, PNM believes the objections can be readily resolved. Issuance of the order by EPA does not impact PNM's ability to operate the plant.

Ozone Non-Attainment

In January 2010, EPA announced it would strengthen the 8-hour ozone standard by setting a new standard in a range of 0.060-0.070 parts per million (“ppm”). EPA had intended to establish the new standard by July 31, 2011. However, in September 2011, President Obama requested that the EPA administrator withdraw the agency's proposed rule that would have replaced the existing ozone national ambient air quality standard (“NAAQS”). The President in his release stated that work is already underway to reconsider the ozone standard, with proposed revisions expected in the fall of 2013 and a final standard published by 2014. Depending upon where the standard for ozone is set, San Juan County, where SJGS is situated, could be designated as not attaining the standard for ozone. If that were to occur, NMED would have responsibility for bringing the county into compliance and would look at all sources of NOx and volatile organic compounds since these are the pollutants that form ground-level ozone. As a result, SJGS could be required to put on additional NOx controls. In addition, other counties in New Mexico, including Bernalillo County, may be designated as non-attainment. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter, the impact of other potential environmental mitigations, or if additional NOx controls would be required as a result of ozone non-attainment designation.

Citizen Suit Under the Clean Air Act

The operations of the SJGS are covered by a Consent Decree with the Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club and with the NMED that includes stipulated penalties for non-compliance with specified emissions limits. Stipulated penalty amounts are placed in escrow on a quarterly basis pending review of SJGS's emissions performance. Over the past several years, PNM has also submitted reports addressing mercury and NOx emission controls for SJGS as required by the Consent Decree. Plaintiffs and NMED rejected PNM's reports. PNM disputes the validity of the rejection of the reports. In May 2010, PNM filed a petition with the federal district court seeking a judicial determination on the dispute relating to PNM's mercury controls. NMED and plaintiffs seek to require PNM to implement additional mercury controls. PNM estimates the implementation would increase annual mercury control costs for the entire station by as much as $5.4 million (for a total annual mercury control cost of $6.0 million). The court has appointed a special master to evaluate the technical arguments in the case. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Navajo Nation Environmental Issues

Four Corners is located on the Navajo Reservation and is held under an easement granted by the federal government as well as a lease from the Navajo Nation. 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. The District Court stayed these proceedings pursuant to a request by the parties and the parties are seeking to negotiate a settlement.

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 courts 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.

The Company cannot currently predict the outcome of these matters or the range of their potential impacts.

Section 114 Request

In April 2009, APS received a request from EPA under Section 114 of the CAA seeking detailed information regarding projects at and operations of Four Corners. EPA has taken the position that many utilities have made physical or operational changes at their plants that should have triggered additional regulatory requirements under the NSR provisions of the CAA. Other electric utilities have received and responded to similar Section 114 requests, and several of them have been subject to notices of violation and lawsuits by EPA. APS has responded to EPA's request. PNM is currently unable to predict the timing or content of EPA's response, if any, or any resulting actions.

Four Corners New Source Review

Following two NOIs to sue, EarthJustice filed a lawsuit in October 2011 in the United States District Court for New Mexico against APS and the other Four Corners participants, except PNM, alleging violations of the PSD provisions of the CAA. EarthJustice filed suit against PNMR, which is not a Four Corners participant. Among other things, the plaintiffs seek to have the court enjoin operations at Four Corners until any required PSD permits are issued and order the payment of civil penalties, including a beneficial mitigation project.

In January 2012, following a third NOI to sue, EarthJustice filed its First Amended Complaint, naming PNM as a party instead of PNMR. In addition to the allegations of its original complaint, EarthJustice alleged NSPS violations. PNM was served with the amended complaint on January 17, 2012. APS is evaluating the lawsuit. The Company cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact.

Endangered Species Act

In January 2011, the Center for Biological Diversity, Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, and San Juan Citizens Alliance filed a lawsuit against the OSM and the DOI, alleging that OSM failed to engage in mandatory Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service prior to authorizing the renewal of an operating permit for the mine that serves Four Corners. The lawsuit alleges that activities at the mine, including mining and the disposal of coal combustion residue, will adversely affect several endangered species and their critical habitats. The lawsuit requests the court to vacate and remand the mining permit and enjoin all activities carried out under the permit until OSM has complied with the ESA. Neither PNM nor APS is a party to the lawsuit. The lawsuit has been stayed pending a decision by the court on a motion to dismiss filed by the Navajo Nation, another intervenor. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.

Cooling Water Intake Structures

EPA issued its proposed cooling water intake structures rule in April 2011, which would provide national standards for certain cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and other facilities under the Clean Water Act. The proposed standards are intended 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). The proposed rule would require facilities such as Four Corners and SJGS to either demonstrate that impingement mortality at its cooling water intakes does not exceed a specified rate or reduce the flow at those structures to less than a specified velocity and to take certain protective measures with respect to impinged fish. To minimize entrainment mortality, the proposed rule would also require these facilities to either meet the definition of a closed cycle recirculating cooling system or conduct a “structured site-specific analysis” to determine what site-specific controls, if any, should be required.

EPA is expected to issue a final rule by July 2012. The proposed rule requires existing facilities to comply with the impingement mortality requirements as soon as possible, but no later than eight years after the effective date of the rule, and to comply with the entrainment requirements as soon as possible under a schedule of compliance established by the permitting authority. PNM and APS continue to follow the rulemaking and are performing analyses to determine the potential costs of compliance with the proposed rule. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or a range of the potential costs of compliance.

Santa Fe Generating Station

PNM and the NMED are parties to agreements under which PNM installed a remediation system to treat water from a City of Santa Fe municipal supply well, an extraction well, and monitoring wells to address gasoline contamination in the groundwater at the site of the former Santa Fe Generating Station and service center. PNM believes the observed groundwater contamination originated from off-site sources but agreed to operate the remediation facilities until the groundwater meets applicable federal and state standards or until the NMED determines that additional remediation is not required, whichever is earlier. The municipal well continues to operate and meets federal drinking water standards. PNM is not able to assess the duration of this project.

The Superfund Oversight Section of the NMED has conducted multiple investigations into the chlorinated solvent plume in the vicinity of the site of the former Santa Fe Generating Station. In February 2008, a NMED site inspection report was submitted to EPA, which states that neither the source nor extent of contamination has been determined and also states that the source may not be the former Santa Fe Generating Station. The NMED investigation is ongoing. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

Coal Combustion Waste Disposal

Regulation

CCBs consisting of fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum from SJGS are currently disposed of in the surface mine pits adjacent to the plant. SJGS does not operate any CCB impoundments. The Mining and Minerals Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department currently regulates mine placement of ash with federal oversight by the OSM. APS disposes of CCBs in ash ponds and dry storage areas at Four Corners, and also sells a portion of its fly ash for beneficial uses, such as a constituent in concrete production. Ash management at Four Corners is regulated by EPA and the New Mexico State Engineer's Office.

In June 2010, EPA published a proposed rule that includes two options for waste designation of coal ash in the Federal Register. One option is to regulate CCBs as a hazardous waste, which would allow EPA to create a comprehensive federal program for waste management and disposal of CCBs. The other option is to regulate CCBs as a non-hazardous waste, which would provide EPA with the authority to develop performance standards for waste management facilities handling the CCBs and would be enforced primarily by state authorities or through citizen suits. Both options allow for continued use of CCBs in beneficial applications. EPA's proposal does not address the placement of CCBs in surface mine pits for reclamation. A final rule regarding waste designation for coal ash is not expected from EPA before mid to late 2012. An OSM CCB rulemaking team has been formed to develop a proposed rule. OSM's draft rulemaking schedule targets an April 2012 publication in the Federal Register.

In January 2012, several environmental groups, including Sierra Club, submitted a NOI to sue to EPA under the RCRA. The groups intend to file a citizen suit claiming that EPA has failed to review and revise RCRA's regulations with respect to CCBs. The groups allege that EPA has already determined that revisions to the CCBs regulations are necessary. They also claim that EPA now has a non-discretionary duty to revise the regulations. The environmental groups seek to ask a court to direct EPA to complete its review of the regulation of CCBs and a hazardous waste analytical procedure as soon as possible and to determine whether revisions of such regulations are warranted. PNM and industry groups are evaluating the potential implications of the threatened suit on EPA's rulemaking agenda for CCBs.

PNM advocates for the non-hazardous regulation of CCBs. PNM cannot predict the outcome of EPA's or OSM's proposed rulemaking regarding CCB regulation, including mine placement of CCBs, or whether these actions will have a material impact on its operations, financial position, or cash flows.

Sierra Club Allegations

In December 2009, PNM and PNMR received a NOI to sue under RCRA from the Sierra Club (“RCRA Notice”). The RCRA Notice was also sent to all SJGS owners, to SJCC, which operates the San Juan Mine that supplies coal to SJGS, and to BHP. Additionally, PNM was informed that SJCC and BHP received a separate NOI to sue under the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act ("SMCRA") from the Sierra Club. In April 2010, the Sierra Club filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against PNM and PNMR. Also named in the lawsuit were SJCC and BHP. Sierra Club filed an amended complaint in July 2010, correcting technical deficiencies in the original complaint. In the amended complaint, Sierra Club alleges that activities at SJGS and the San Juan Mine are causing imminent and substantial harm to the environment, including ground and surface water in the region, and that placement of CCBs at the San Juan Mine constitutes "open dumping" in violation of RCRA. The suit also includes claims against SJCC and BHP under SMCRA. The complaint requests judgment for injunctive relief, payment of civil penalties, and an award of plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs. The parties have agreed to a stay of the action, which the Court entered in August 2010, to allow the parties to try to address Sierra Club's concerns. If the parties are unable to settle the matter, PNM is prepared to aggressively defend its position in the RCRA litigation. PNM and PNMR do not believe the outcome of this matter will have a material impact.

Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAPs”) Rulemaking

In December 2011, the EPA issued its final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”). MATS is designed to reduce emissions of heavy metals, including mercury, arsenic, chromium and nickel, as well as acid gases, including hydrochloric and hydrofluoric gases, from coal and oil-fired electric generating units with a capacity of at least 25 MW. Existing facilities will generally have up to four years to demonstrate compliance with the new rule. PNM's assessment of MATS indicates that the control equipment currently used at SJGS allows the plant to meet the emission standards set forth in the rule although the plant may be required to install additional monitoring equipment. With regard to mercury, stack testing performed for EPA during the MATS rulemaking process showed that SJGS achieved a mercury removal rate of 99% or greater. APS will conduct testing to determine what additional controls, if any, will be required at Four Corners. If additional controls are required, the costs are not expected to be material.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

Coal Supply

The coal requirements for SJGS are being supplied by SJCC, a wholly owned subsidiary of BHP. In addition to coal delivered to meet the current needs of SJGS, PNM prepays SJCC for certain coal mined but not yet delivered to the plant site. SJCC holds certain federal, state, and private coal leases and has an underground coal sales agreement to supply processed coal for operation of SJGS through 2017. Under the coal sales agreement, SJCC is reimbursed for all costs for mining and delivering the coal, including an allocated portion of administrative costs, and receives a return on its investment. BHP Minerals International, Inc. has guaranteed the obligations of SJCC under the coal agreement. The coal agreement contemplates the delivery of coal that would supply substantially all the requirements of the SJGS through approximately 2017.

APS purchases all of Four Corners' coal requirements from a supplier with a long-term lease of coal reserves with the Navajo Nation. The Four Corners coal contract runs through 2016 with pricing determined using an escalating base-price. APS is currently in discussions with the coal supplier regarding post-2016 coal supply for Four Corners.

In 2010, PNM updated its study of the final reclamation costs for both the surface mines that previously provided coal to SJGS and the current underground mine providing coal and revised its estimates of the final reclamation costs. The estimate for decommissioning the Four Corners mine was also revised in 2010. Based on the most recent estimates, payments for mine reclamation, in future dollars, are estimated to be $54.1 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $21.7 million for the underground mine at SJGS as of December 31, 2011. PNM made payments against the surface mine liability of $1.9 million, $5.1 million, and $7.6 million during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, liabilities, in current dollars, of $26.5 million and $25.0 million for surface mine reclamation and $4.2 million and $2.8 million for underground mining activities were recorded in other deferred credits.

PNM collects a provision for mine reclamation costs in its rates. The NMPRC has capped the amount that can be collected for final reclamation of the surface mines at $100.0 million. Previously, PNM recorded a regulatory asset for the amount of surface mine reclamation costs to be collected from ratepayers, limited by the amount of the cap. If future estimates increase the liability for surface mine reclamation, the excess would be expensed at that time.

San Juan Underground Mine Fire Incident

On September 9, 2011, a fire was discovered at the underground mine owned and operated by SJCC that provides coal for SJGS. The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) was notified of the incident and has since been on-site. On September 12, 2011, SJCC informed PNM that the fire was extinguished and continues to report that all measurements from the area of the fire continue to suggest the fire is extinguished. However, MSHA required sealing the incident area and confirmation of a noncombustible environment before allowing re-entry of the sealed area. SJCC informed PNM that MSHA approved a sealing plan on October 7, 2011. SJCC has indicated to PNM that it believes the mine's longwall equipment has experienced only minor damage, if any, and currently estimates being able to restart longwall mining operations in early May 2012. However, if the longwall mining operation is shut down longer than currently anticipated by SJCC, PNM and the other owners of SJGS would need to consider alternatives for operating SJGS, including running at less than full capacity or shutting down one or more units, the impacts of which cannot be determined at the current time. In late February 2012, SJCC began the process of re-entering the sealed portion of the mine. Although no unanticipated conditions have been encountered to date, a complete assessment of the incident site and the longwall mining equipment cannot be made until full access is made to the sealed area.

PNM continues to actively monitor developments at the mine and evaluate the availability of coal supply. As of September 9, 2011, there were inventories of previously mined coal available to supply the fuel requirements of SJGS for approximately eight and one-half months at forecasted consumption before the disruption. Production from continuous miner sections of the mine was re-started on November 19, 2011 and coal sourced from other mines is being considered to supplement inventories. SJCC has also reported it is implementing cost savings measures during the mine disruption. PNM is also working with SJCC to identify cost-saving opportunities to mitigate the impact of the incident.

PNM anticipates that as the cost of the mine recovery flows through the cost-reimbursable component of the coal supply agreement, it would recover through its FPPAC the portion of such costs attributable to its customers subject to New Mexico regulation. The staff of the NMPRC has requested that PNM provide information segregating the impacts of this incident on the FPPAC. On February 27, 2012, PNM made a filing with the NMPRC, which reflects a preliminary estimate that this incident increased the deferral under the FPPAC by $14.5 million. PNM is unable at this time to predict when operations will resume at the mine. Based on information PNM has received from SJCC to date, PNM does not expect the mine fire to have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows due to the inventories of previously mined coal available to supply SJGS.

PVNGS Liability and Insurance Matters

The PVNGS participants have insurance for public liability exposure for a nuclear incident totaling $12.6 billion per occurrence. Commercial insurance carriers provide $375 million and $12.2 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 assessment per incident for all three units is $36.0 million, with an annual payment limitation of $5.4 million.

The PVNGS participants maintain “all risk” (including nuclear hazards) insurance for damage to, and decontamination of, property at PVNGS in the aggregate amount of $2.75 billion, a substantial portion of which must first be applied to stabilization and decontamination. These coverages are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (“NEIL”). If NEIL's losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, PNM is subject to retrospective assessments of up to $5.8 million for each retrospective assessment declared by NEIL's Board of Directors. The insurance coverage discussed in this and the previous paragraph is subject to policy conditions and exclusions.

Natural Gas Supply

PNM Electric procures gas supplies for its power plants from third-party sources and contracts with third party transportation providers.

PNM Gas contracted for the purchase of gas primarily to serve its retail customers. The majority of these contracts were short-term in nature. The price of gas was a pass-through, whereby PNM Gas recovered 100% of its cost of gas. As discussed in Note 2, PNM completed the sale of PNM Gas on January 30, 2009 at which time all commitments for PNM Gas future gas purchases were assumed by the buyer.

Water Supply

Because of New Mexico's arid climate and periodic drought conditions, there is concern in New Mexico about the use of water, including that used for power generation. PNM has secured groundwater rights in connection with the existing plants at Reeves Station, Delta, Valencia, Afton, Luna, and Lordsburg. Water availability does not appear to be an issue for these plants at this time.

PNM, APS, and BHP have undertaken activities to secure additional water supplies for SJGS, Four Corners, and related mines to accommodate the possibility of inadequate precipitation in coming years. Since 2004, PNM has entered into agreements for voluntary sharing of the impacts of water shortages with tribes and other water users in the San Juan basin. The current agreements run through December 31, 2012 and renewals are currently being negotiated. In addition, in the case of water shortage, PNM, APS, and BHP have reached agreement with the Jicarilla Apache Nation on a long-term supplemental contract relating to water for SJGS and Four Corners that runs through 2016. Although the Company does not believe that its operations will be materially affected by drought conditions at this time, it cannot forecast the weather or its ramifications, or how policy, regulations, and legislation may impact the Company should water shortages occur in the future.

In April 2010, APS signed an agreement on behalf of the PVNGS participants with five cities to provide cooling water essential to power production at PVNGS for the next forty years.

PVNGS Water Supply Litigation

In 1986 an action commenced regarding the rights of APS and the other PVNGS participants to the use of groundwater and effluent at PVNGS. APS filed claims that dispute the court's jurisdiction over PVNGS' groundwater rights and their contractual rights to effluent relating to PVNGS and, alternatively, seek confirmation of those rights. In 1999, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a decision finding that certain groundwater rights may be available to the federal government and Indian 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 New Mexico District Court to adjudicate all water rights in the San Juan River Stream System. PNM was made a defendant in the litigation in 1976. The action is expected to adjudicate water rights used at Four Corners and SJGS. In 2005, the Navajo Nation and various parties announced a settlement of the Navajo Nation's surface water rights. In March 2009, President Obama signed legislation confirming the settlement with the Navajo Nation. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Navajo water rights would be settled and finally determined by entry by the court of two proposed adjudication decrees. The court has ordered that settlement of the Navajo Nation's claims under the settlement agreement and entry of the proposed decrees be heard in an expedited proceeding.

PNM's water rights in the San Juan Basin may be affected by the rights recognized in the settlement agreement as being owned by the Navajo Nation (which comprise a significant portion of water available from sources on the San Juan River and in the San Juan Basin). Therefore, PNM has elected to participate in this proceeding. The Company 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.

Conflicts at San Juan Mine Involving Oil and Gas Leaseholders

SJCC, through leases with the federal government and the State of New Mexico, owns coal interests with respect to the San Juan underground mine. Certain gas producers have leases in the area of the underground coal mine and have asserted claims against SJCC that its coal mining activities are interfering with gas production. SJCC has reached settlement with several gas leaseholders and has had success in court in defeating the claims of other claimants. Several other claims and potential claimants remain. PNM cannot predict the outcome of existing or future disputes between SJCC and gas leaseholders or the range of potential outcomes.

Republic Savings Bank Litigation

In 1992, an inactive subsidiary of PNMR filed suit against the federal government in the United States Court of Claims, alleging breach of contract arising from the seizure of Republic Savings Bank (“RSB”). RSB was seized and liquidated after federal legislation prohibited certain accounting practices previously authorized by contracts with the federal government.

In January 2008, the court awarded the plaintiffs damages in the amount of $14.9 million. The federal government appealed this matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and plaintiffs cross-appealed. On October 21, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion, affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the Court of Claims, resulting in an award to the plaintiffs of $9.7 million. The appeal period expired in January 2010. A final judgment order was entered for $9.7 million, which amount was received in April 2010. PNM recorded the amount, net of legal expenses of $1.2 million, as other income in 2010.

Western United States Wholesale Power Market

Various circumstances, including electric power supply shortages, weather conditions, gas supply costs, transmission constraints, and alleged market manipulation by certain sellers, resulted in the well-publicized California and Western markets energy crisis of 2000-2001 and the bankruptcy filings of the Cal PX and PG&E. As a result of the conditions in the Western markets between late-2000 and mid-2003, FERC, the California Attorney General, and private parties (collectively, the “California Parties”) initiated investigations, litigation, and other proceedings relevant to PNM and other sellers in the Western markets at FERC and in both California State and Federal District Courts. These sought a determination whether sellers of wholesale electric energy during the crisis period, including PNM, should be ordered to pay monetary refunds to buyers of such energy. PNM participated in these proceedings at FERC, the Federal District Courts, and the Ninth Circuit, including filing appeals to that court.

In December 2009, PNM and the California Parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all remaining claims against PNM. A Settlement Agreement was signed in February 2010 and approved by FERC in April 2010. In the settlement, PNM paid the California Parties $45.0 million, consisting of the assignment of PNM receivables plus interest as of December 31, 2009 from the Cal ISO and the Cal PX in the amount of $13.1 million plus a cash payment of $31.9 million. In exchange, the California Parties released PNM from claims arising from the California energy crisis of 2000 and 2001. PNM recorded the settlement at December 31, 2009. PNM expressly denied any wrongdoing or culpability with respect to the claims against it and, in entering into the settlement, did not admit any fault or liability.

Complaint Against Southwestern Public Service Company

In September 2005, PNM filed a complaint under the Federal Power Act against SPS. PNM argued that SPS had been overcharging PNM for deliveries of energy through its fuel cost adjustment clause practices. PNM also intervened in a proceeding brought by other customers raising similar arguments relating to SPS' fuel cost adjustment clause practices (the “Golden Spread proceeding”). In April 2008, FERC issued its order in the Golden Spread proceeding. FERC affirmed the decision of an ALJ that SPS violated its fuel cost adjustment clause tariffs. However, FERC shortened the refund period applicable to the violation of the fuel cost adjustment clause issues. PNM and SPS have filed petitions for rehearing and clarification of the scope of the remedies that were ordered and reversal of various rulings in the order. FERC has not yet acted upon the requests for rehearing or clarification and they remain pending further decision. PNM cannot predict the final outcome of the case at FERC or the range of possible outcomes.

Begay v. PNM et al

A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities in February 2009 in the United States District Court in Albuquerque. Plaintiffs 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. Plaintiffs, including an allottee association, make broad, general assertions that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees 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 plaintiffs, who have sued the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, seek a constructive trust. They have also included a breach of trust claim against the United States and its Secretary of the Interior. PNM and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss this action. In March 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking redress in federal court.

In May 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), which was denied by the BIA Regional Director. In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional Director's decision to the DOI Board of Appeals. The appeal has been fully briefed and is pending. PNM is participating in order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way implicated in the appeal. PNM cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding or the range of potential outcomes at this time.

Transmission Issues

In April 2010, Cargill Power Markets, LLC (“Cargill”) filed a complaint with FERC, asserting that PNM improperly processed its transmission service queue and unfairly invalidated a transmission service request by Cargill. In July 2010, FERC issued an order establishing a schedule for hearing and settlement procedures. In its order, FERC determined that PNM had improperly invalidated a single Cargill transmission service request submitted in February 2008 and set the issue for hearing to determine an appropriate remedy. In September 2010, FERC granted rehearing for further consideration. In January 2011, PNM and Cargill filed a settlement agreement with FERC in which PNM agreed to pay Cargill $0.2 million and put Cargill's transmission service request back into the queue. The settlement also left Cargill's and PNM's rehearing requests in place before FERC. One intervenor in the proceeding contested the settlement. In December 2011, the Commission issued an order approving the settlement as filed but requiring a compliance filing to modify the standard of review for third parties and FERC. PNM is unable to predict the final outcome of this matter at FERC.