XML 56 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Regulatory and Rate Matters
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Regulatory and Rate Matters  
Regulatory and Rate Matters
Regulatory and Rate Matters

The Company is involved in various regulatory matters, some of which contain contingencies that are subject to the same uncertainties as those described in Note 9. Additional information concerning regulatory and rate matters is contained in Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2012 Annual Reports on Form 10-K.
PNM

Renewable Portfolio Standard
The REA establishes a mandatory RPS requiring a utility to acquire a renewable energy portfolio equal to 10% of retail electric sales by 2011, 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. The NMPRC requires renewable energy portfolios to be “fully diversified.” Prior to December 2012, the diversity requirements were 20% from wind energy, 20% from solar energy, 10% from other renewable technologies, and 1.5% from distributed generation with the distributed generation component increasing to 3% in 2015. In December 2012, NMPRC issued an order that amended the diversity requirements to 30% wind, 20% solar, 5% other, and 1.5% distributed generation, increasing to 3% in 2015, and adopted other changes to its renewable energy rule, including the increase in the RCT discussed below.
The REA provides for streamlined proceedings for approval of utilities' renewable energy procurement plans, assures utilities recovery of costs incurred consistent with approved procurement plans, and requires the NMPRC to establish a RCT for the procurement of renewable resources to prevent excessive costs being added to rates. The NMPRC had established a RCT for 2011 of 2% of all customers' aggregated overall annual electric charges that increased by 0.25% annually until reaching 3% in 2015. In December 2012, the NMPRC approved an amended RCT set at 3% of customers' annual electric charges beginning in 2013 and continuing thereafter.
In July 2011, PNM filed its renewable energy procurement plan for 2012. The plan requested a variance from the RPS due to RCT limitations. The plan was diversity-compliant based on the reduced RPS, except for non-wind/non-solar resources, which were not available. In December 2011, the NMPRC approved PNM's 2012 plan, but ordered PNM to spend an additional $0.9 million on renewable procurements in 2012. PNM intends to recover the costs of the supplemental procurements through the renewable rider discussed below. The NMPRC also required PNM to file its 2013 renewable energy procurement plan by April 30, 2012. The 2013 plan proposed procurements for 2013 and 2014 of 20 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities, at an estimated cost of $45.5 million, wind and solar REC purchases in 2013, and a PPA for the output of a new geothermal facility. The plan also included an additional procurement of 2 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities at an estimated cost of $4.5 million to supply the energy sold under PNM's voluntary renewable energy tariff. The plan will enable PNM to comply with the statutory RPS amount in 2013, but requires a variance from the NMPRC's diversity requirements in 2013 while the proposed geothermal facilities are being constructed. This plan had been expected to achieve full RPS quantity and diversity compliance by 2014 without exceeding the RCT. The NMPRC approved the plan in December 2012, but reduced the additional solar PV procurement from 2 MW to 1.5 MW. Construction of the geothermal facility has been delayed due to a longer than expected permitting process. This will delay the in-service date of the geothermal facility until later in 2014. PNM does not believe this delay will affect its ability to comply with the diversity requirements as amended in December 2012.
PNM is recovering certain renewable procurement costs from customers through a rate rider. See Renewable Energy Rider below.
Renewable Energy Rider
On August 14, 2012, the NMPRC authorized PNM to recover certain renewable procurement costs through a rate rider on a per KWh basis. The approved rates are $0.0022335 per KWh in 2012 and $0.0028371 per KWh in 2013. The order disapproved the recovery of the cost of a supplemental REC procurement ordered by the NMPRC in the 2012 procurement plan case because the NMPRC had not yet acted on the specific $0.9 million procurement proposed by PNM, which is discussed under Renewable Portfolio Standard above. The NMPRC subsequently approved the supplemental REC procurement, but ordered that a hearing be held on its inclusion in the rider. PNM implemented the rider on August 20, 2012. The rider will terminate upon a final order in PNM's next general rate case unless the NMPRC authorizes PNM to continue it. Amounts collected under the rider are capped at $18.0 million in 2012 and $24.6 million in 2013. Any amounts above the caps are deferred for future recovery without carrying costs. As a separate component of the rider, if PNM's earned return on jurisdictional equity in 2013, adjusted for weather and other items not representative of normal operations, exceeds 10.5%, PNM must refund to customers during May through December 2014 the amount over 10.5%.

In compliance with the NMPRC's  rate rider order, PNM filed a notice to implement a 3.37% increase in the current rider rate effective with May 2013 bills.  The NMPRC suspended the effective date of the new rate for a period of nine months from April 1, 2013 and appointed a Hearing Examiner to conduct a hearing on the proposed change.  The Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the notice. On April 24, 2013, the NMPRC issued an order denying approval of the Hearing Examiner's Recommended Decision but did not disapprove the notice. The costs proposed to be recovered have been previously approved for recovery by the NMPRC. The order did not rescind these prior approvals. The order does not indicate what further proceedings, if any, the NMPRC intends to conduct.  On May 3, 2013, PNM, the NMPRC staff, and an intervening party filed a joint motion  for rehearing of the NMPRC order.
Energy Efficiency and Load Management
Program Costs

Public utilities are required by the Efficient Use of Energy Act to achieve specified levels of energy savings and to obtain NMPRC approval to implement energy efficiency and load management programs. Costs to implement approved programs are recovered through a rate rider. In 2013, this act was amended to set an annual program budget equal to 3% of a utility's annual revenue.

In October 2012, PNM filed an energy efficiency program application for programs to be offered beginning in May 2013. The filing included proposed program costs of $22.5 million plus a proposed profit incentive of $4.2 million and requested that the NMPRC issue an order by April 1, 2013. Portions of the program plan and proposed profit incentive are opposed by other parties to the case. PNM subsequently revised its proposed profit incentive to $2.9 million. A hearing on the application was held in February 2013. PNM is not able to predict the outcome of this matter.
Disincentives/Incentives Adder
The Efficient Use of Energy Act requires the NMPRC to remove utility disincentives to implementing energy efficiency and load management programs and to provide incentives for such programs. A rule approved by the NMPRC authorized electric utilities to collect rate adders of $0.01 per KWh for lifetime energy savings and $10 per KW for demand savings related to energy efficiency and demand response programs beginning in 2010. The NMAG and NMIEC appealed the NMPRC order adopting this rule to the New Mexico Supreme Court. PNM began implementing a rate rider under the rule to collect adders related to its 2010 program savings in December 2010 while the appeal of the rule was pending. In July 2011, the Supreme Court annulled and vacated the order adopting the rule and remanded the matter to the NMPRC. As a result of the Supreme Court decision, PNM filed revised tariffs and ceased collecting this adder for 2010 program savings on August 21, 2011. Of the $4.2 million authorized for recovery, $2.6 million was collected through August 20, 2011.

In June 2011, prior to the Supreme Court decision, the NMPRC approved PNM-specific adders of $0.002 per KWh and $4 per KW for savings due to programs implemented in 2011. PNM is presently collecting $1.3 million in adder revenues consistent with this order. After the Supreme Court decision vacating the rule, the NMPRC initiated a proceeding to determine whether PNM should be required to cease collecting the adders and to refund all adder revenues collected since December 2010. In November 2011, the NMPRC issued orders that PNM is not required to refund any adder revenues and is authorized to continue collecting the adders. However, in an order on rehearing, which it subsequently rescinded, the NMPRC further reduced the amount of the authorized adders. Prior to the rescission, PNM appealed the rehearing order to the Supreme Court. In March 2012, the Supreme Court granted PNM's motion to vacate the rehearing order and dismiss PNM's appeal. In a separate appeal and writ proceeding in the Supreme Court, NMIEC and the NMAG seek to overturn the NMPRC order allowing PNM to continue to collect adders in light of the 2011 Supreme Court decision. On May 21, 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the writ proceeding. Oral argument in the appeal was held in December 2012, and a decision in the appeal is expected in 2013. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of the appeal.
On March 27, 2013, PNM filed the reconciliation for actual energy efficiency program costs, associated incentives, and actual collections for calendar year 2012. The reconciliation filing showed a net over-recovery of $0.2 million, composed of an over-recovery of $1.0 million of program costs and an under-recovery of incentives of $0.8 million. PNM subsequently revised the estimated incentive under-recovery to $0.5 million. PNM and the NMPRC staff filed a motion seeking to substitute the new reconciliation filing with a proposed effective date of May 28, 2013. On April 24, 2013, the NMPRC issued an order granting the motion. Under the order, the new rate based on the adjusted reconciliation amount will become effective on May 28, 2013, unless suspended by the NMPRC.
Decoupling Rulemaking
On May 15, 2012, the NMPRC issued a NOPR that would have amended the NMPRC's energy efficiency rule to authorize use of a decoupling mechanism to recover certain fixed costs of providing retail electric service from the rates charged on a per KWh of consumption, as the mechanism for removal of disincentives associated with the implementation of energy efficiency programs. The proposed rule also addressed incentives associated with energy efficiency. On July 26, 2012, the NMPRC closed the proposed rulemaking and opened a new energy efficiency rulemaking docket that may address decoupling and incentives. Workshops to develop a proposed rule have been held, but no order proposing a rule has been issued. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
2010 Electric Rate Case and FPPAC
An order of the NMPRC approving an amended stipulation in PNM's 2010 Electric Rate Case limits the amount that can be recovered on an annual basis for fuel costs, renewable energy costs, and energy efficiency costs during certain years. Costs in excess of the limits are deferred, without carrying costs, for recovery in future periods. The fuel cost caps are $38.8 million for the FPPAC year beginning July 1, 2012, which PNM began collecting at that time, and $36.2 million for the FPPAC year beginning July 1, 2013. PNM estimates that the caps will result in approximately $45.5 million of FPPAC costs being deferred for future collection at June 30, 2014. Costs attributed to the mine fire incident discussed in Note 9 are included in the FPPAC amounts. Possible recovery of costs through SJCC's insurance, also discussed in Note 9, is not reflected in the FPPAC amounts.
PNM must file an application for continued use of its FPPAC every four years. PNM anticipates making this continuation filing in May 2013.
2011 Integrated Resource Plan
NMPRC rules require that investor owned utilities file an IRP every three years. The IRP is required to cover a 20-year planning period and contain an action plan covering the first four years of that period. In its most recent IRP, which was filed in July 2011, PNM indicated that it planned to meet its anticipated load growth through a combination of new natural gas-fired generating plants, renewable energy resources, load management, and energy efficiency programs. However, PNM has not entered into any commitments regarding these plans beyond what is otherwise described herein. As required by NMPRC rules, PNM utilized a public advisory group process during the development of the 2011 IRP. Two protests were filed to the IRP requesting rejection of the plan. The NMPRC assigned the case to a Hearing Examiner and designated a mediator to facilitate negotiations. The NMPRC staff filed a motion in December 2011 to dismiss the protests and terminate the proceeding on the ground that PNM's IRP fully complies with NMPRC rules. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
Emergency FPPAC
In 2008, the NMPRC authorized PNM to implement an Emergency FPPAC from June 2, 2008 through June 30, 2009. The NMPRC order approving the Emergency FPPAC also provided that if PNM's base load generating units did not operate at or above a specified capacity factor and PNM was required to obtain replacement power to serve jurisdictional customers, PNM would be required to make a filing with the NMPRC seeking approval of the replacement power costs. In its required filing, PNM stated that the costs of the replacement power amounting to $8.0 million were prudently incurred and made a motion that they be approved. The NMPRC staff opposed PNM's motion and recommended that PNM be required to refund the amount collected. Auditors selected by the NMPRC found that PNM was prudent in operating its base load units and in securing replacement power but had not obtained prior NMPRC approval in the manner required by the NMPRC order. PNM continues to assert that its recovery of replacement power costs was proper and did not violate the NMPRC's order. The NMPRC has not ruled on this matter. Under the terms of the approved stipulation in the 2010 Electric Rate Case, the parties to the stipulation, including the NMPRC staff, jointly requested that the NMPRC take no further action in this matter and close the docket. No party has opposed that request. Although the NMPRC has not acted on the joint request, the NMPRC electronic docket shows the docket closed. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
Applications for Approvals to Purchase Delta
As discussed in Note 9 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2012 Annual Reports on Form 10-K, PNM has entered in to an agreement to purchase Delta, a 132 MW natural gas peaking unit from which PNM currently acquires energy and capacity under a PPA. The agreement to purchase Delta is subject to approvals by the NMPRC and FERC. On January 3, 2013, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to own and operate Delta and for a determination of related ratemaking principles and treatment. PNM requested expedited consideration of the application so that a final order could be issued by May 31, 2013. The NMPRC has assigned the matter to a hearing examiner. A hearing on the application is scheduled to begin on May 13, 2013. PNM filed an application for approval of the Delta acquisition at FERC on January 24, 2013. FERC approved the purchase on February 26, 2013. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
Application for Approval of La Luz Generating Station
PNM anticipates filing an application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a new 40 MW gas-fired generating facility near Belen, New Mexico with the NMPRC in May 2013. The application also will ask for a determination of related ratemaking principles and treatment. The estimated cost of this facility is approximately $63.2 million. PNM anticipates an in-service date in the first quarter of 2016. PNM has entered into a contract for the turbine to be used for this project. PNM also has entered into a turn-key contract with an outside contractor for the construction of the generating facility. Both of these contracts allow PNM to cancel the project if NMPRC approval is not obtained. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
Transmission Rate Case
In October 2010, PNM filed a notice with FERC to increase its wholesale electric transmission revenues by $11.1 million annually, based on a return on equity of 12.25%. The filing also sought to revise certain Open Access Transmission Tariff provisions and bi-lateral contractual terms.  In December 2010, FERC issued an order accepting PNM's filing and suspending the proposed tariff revisions for five months. The proposed rates were implemented on June 1, 2011, subject to refund. The rate increase applied to all of PNM's wholesale electric transmission service customers, which include other utilities, electric cooperatives, and entities that use PNM's transmission system to transmit power at the wholesale level.  The rate increase did not impact PNM's retail customers. On January 2, 2013, FERC approved an unopposed settlement agreement, which increases transmission service revenues by $2.9 million annually. In addition, the parties agreed that if PNM files for a formula based rate change within one year from FERC's approval of the settlement agreement, no party will oppose the general principle of a formula rate, although the parties may still object to particular aspects of the formula. PNM refunded amounts collected in excess of the settled rates in January 2013. See Tri-State Complaint below.
Formula Transmission Rate Case
On December 31, 2012, PNM filed an application with FERC for authorization to move from charging stated rates for wholesale electric transmission service to a formula rate mechanism pursuant to which rates for wholesale transmission service are calculated annually in accordance with an approved formula. The proposed formula includes updating cost of service components, including investment in plant and operating expenses, based on information contained in PNM's annual financial report filed with FERC, as well as including projected large transmission capital projects to be placed into service in the following year. The projections included are subject to true-up in the following year formula rate. Certain items, including changes to return on equity and depreciation rates, require a separate filing to be made with FERC before being included in the formula rate. The rates resulting from PNM's application are intended to replace the rates approved by the FERC on January 2, 2013 in the transmission rate case discussed above. As filed, PNM's request would result in a $3.2 million wholesale electric transmission rate increase, based on PNM's 2011 data and a 10.81% return on equity, and authority to adjust transmission rates annually based on an approved formula. The proposed $3.2 million rate increase would be in addition to the $2.9 million rate increase approved by the FERC on January 2, 2013 in the transmission rate case discussed above.
On March 1, 2013, FERC issued an order (1) accepting PNM's revisions to its rates for filing and suspending the proposed revisions to become effective August 2, 2013, subject to refund; (2) directing PNM to submit a compliance filing to establish its return-on-equity (“ROE”) using the median, rather than the mid-point, of the ROEs from a proxy group of companies; (3) directing PNM to submit a compliance filing to remove the acquisition adjustment related to PNM's 60% ownership of the EIP transmission line from its rate proposal; and (4) setting the proceeding for hearing and settlement judge procedures. PNM would be allowed to make a separate filing related to recovery of the EIP acquisition adjustment. On April 1, 2013, PNM made the required compliance filing. In addition, PNM filed for rehearing of FERC's order regarding the ROE. On May 1, 2013, PNM provided an updated rate request to its wholesale electric transmission service customers incorporating 2012 data and the FERC order into the formula rate. The updated formula rate would result in a $1.3 million rate increase over the rates approved by FERC on January 2, 2013. PNM anticipates filing the updated rate request with FERC on June 1, 2013. The new rates will apply to all of PNM's wholesale electric transmission service customers, which include other utilities, electric cooperatives, and entities that use PNM's transmission system to transmit power at the wholesale level. The new rates will not apply to PNM's retail customers. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding.

Tri-State Complaint
On March 13, 2013, Tri-State filed a complaint with FERC alleging that PNM's existing transmission rates approved by FERC on January 2, 2013 in the transmission rate case discussed above are unjust and unreasonable under the Federal Power Act.  Tri-State's allegations are premised upon FERC's March 1, 2013 order and certain data provided by PNM in PNM's Formula Transmission Rate Case discussed above.  Tri-State seeks a reduction in PNM's annual transmission revenue requirement for the period between March 13, 2013 and the implementation of PNM's proposed rates under the Formula Transmission Rate Case.  Tri-State also requests that FERC consolidate the complaint proceeding with the Formula Transmission Rate Case.  On April 2, 2013, PNM answered Tri-State's complaint, asking FERC to dismiss the complaint and deny Tri-State's request to consolidate the complaint proceeding with the Formula Transmission Rate Case. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding.
Firm-Requirements Wholesale Customers
Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. Rate Case
In September 2011, PNM filed an unexecuted amended sales agreement between PNM and NEC with FERC. The agreement proposed a cost of service based rate for the electric service and ancillary services PNM provides to NEC, which would result in an annual increase of $8.7 million or a 39.8% increase over existing rates. PNM also requested a FPPAC and full recovery of certain third-party transmission charges PNM incurs to serve NEC. NEC filed a protest to PNM's filing with FERC. In November 2011, FERC issued an order accepting the filing, suspending the effective date to be effective April 14, 2012, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for settlement. The parties finalized a settlement agreement and PNM filed for the necessary FERC approval on December 6, 2012. The settlement agreement would result in an annual increase of $5.3 million, an extension of the contract for 10 years, and an agreement that PNM will be able to file an application for formula based rates to be effective in 2015. On April 5, 2013, FERC approved the settlement agreement. PNM anticipates refunding amounts collected in excess of the settled rates by June 4, 2013.
City of Gallup, New Mexico Contract Approval Case

PNM provides both energy and power services to Gallup, PNM's second largest firm-requirements wholesale customer, under an electric service agreement that expires June 30, 2013. On May 1, 2013, PNM and Gallup agreed to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2014 and to increase the demand and energy rates under the agreement. On May 1, 2013, PNM requested FERC approval of the amended agreement to be effective July 1, 2013. If approved by FERC, revenue from Gallup would increase by $3.1 million during the term of the amended agreement. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding.
TNMP
Advanced Meter System Deployment and Surcharge Request
In July 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement and authorized an AMS deployment plan that permits TNMP to collect $113.3 million in deployment costs through a surcharge over a 12-year period. TNMP began collecting the surcharge on August 11, 2011. Deployment of advanced meters began in September 2011 and is scheduled to be completed over a 5-year period. In February 2012, the PUCT opened a proceeding to consider the feasibility of an “opt-out” program for retail consumers that wish to decline receipt of an advanced meter. The PUCT has requested comments and convened a public meeting to hear various issues. No proposal or decision has yet been announced by the PUCT. However, various individuals filed a petition with the PUCT seeking a moratorium on any advanced meter deployment. The PUCT denied the petition and an appeal was filed with the Texas District Court on September 28, 2012. On February 21, 2013, the PUCT filed a proposed rule to permit customers to opt-out of the AMS deployment. A hearing to receive additional comment on the proposed rulemaking was held on April 19, 2013. Any opt-out program would apply to all transmission and distribution utilities in ERCOT. TNMP cannot predict the outcome or effect of this proceeding.
Energy Efficiency

TNMP recovers the costs of its energy efficiency programs through an energy efficiency cost recovery factor. On August 28, 2012, the PUCT approved a settlement that permits TNMP to collect estimated 2013 program costs of $4.8 million, plus recovery of an aggregate of $0.4 million in under-collected costs from prior years, case expenses, and a performance bonus for 2011. TNMP's new rates were effective January 1, 2013. TNMP anticipates filing by June 1, 2013 to collect estimated 2014 energy efficiency program costs of $4.7 million and a $0.7 million bonus for 2012.

Transmission Cost of Service Rates

TNMP can update its transmission rates twice per year to reflect changes in its invested capital. Updated rates reflect the addition and retirement of transmission facilities, including appropriate depreciation, federal income tax and other associated taxes, and the approved rate of return on such facilities.

On August 23, 2012, TNMP filed an application to update its transmission rates to reflect changes in its invested capital. The application reflected an increase in total rate base of $26.4 million and requested an increase in revenues of $2.5 million annually. The PUCT approved the interim adjustment and TNMP implemented it on September 27, 2012.

On January 31, 2013, TNMP filed an application to further update its transmission rates to reflect changes in its invested capital. The requested increase in total rate base is $21.9 million, which will increase revenues $2.9 million annually. On March 19, 2013, the PUCT ALJ approved TNMP's interim transmission cost of service filing and rates went into effect with bills rendered March 20, 2013.