Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
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 periodically participates in the investigation and remediation of various sites. In addition, the Company occasionally enters into financial commitments in connection with its business operations. The Company is also involved in various legal and regulatory (Note 10) 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 and regulatory proceedings on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. With respect to some of the items listed below, the Company has determined that a loss is not probable or that, to the extent probable, cannot be reasonably estimated. In some cases, the Company is not able to predict with any degree of certainty the range of possible loss that could be incurred. 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. Additional information concerning commitments and contingencies is contained in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2012 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. Commitments and Contingencies Related to the Environment Nuclear Spent Fuel and Waste Disposal Nuclear power plant operators are required to enter into spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE that require the DOE to accept and dispose of all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes generated by domestic power reactors. Although the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required the DOE to develop a permanent repository for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel by 1998, the DOE announced that it would not be able to open the repository by 1998 and sought to excuse its performance under the contract. In November 1997, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision preventing the DOE from excusing its own delay, but refused to order the DOE to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel. Based on this decision and the DOE's delay, a number of utilities, including APS (on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS owners, including PNM), filed damages actions against the DOE in the Court of Federal Claims. The PVNGS owners previously received a damages award for costs incurred through December 2006. APS filed a subsequent lawsuit, on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS owners, against DOE in the Court of Federal Claims on December 19, 2012. The lawsuit alleges that from January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2011, APS, as a co-owner of PVNGS, incurred additional damages due to DOE's continuing failure to remove spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from PVNGS. Activities in this legal proceeding are currently limited to review by the government of supporting information for APS's claim. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. 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 during the term of the operating licenses. PNM accrues these costs as a component of fuel expense as the fuel is consumed. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, PNM had a liability for interim storage costs of $12.3 million and $13.9 million included in other deferred credits. On June 8, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision on a challenge by several states and environmental groups of the NRC's rulemaking regarding temporary storage and permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel. The petitioners had challenged the NRC's 2010 update to the agency's Waste Confidence Decision. The D.C. Circuit found that the agency's 2010 Waste Confidence Decision update constituted a major federal action, which requires either an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact from the agency's actions. The D.C. Circuit found that the NRC's evaluation of the environmental risks from spent nuclear was deficient, and therefore remanded the 2010 Waste Confidence Decision update for further action. In September 2012, the NRC issued a directive to its staff to proceed with development of a generic environmental impact statement to support an updated Waste Confidence Decision within 24 months. PNM is unable to predict the impact that the decision may have on the operation of PVNGS. The Clean Air Act Regional Haze In 1999, EPA developed a regional haze program and regional haze rules under the CAA. The rule directs each of the 50 states to address regional haze. Pursuant to the CAA, states have the primary role to regulate visibility requirements by promulgating SIPs. States are required to establish goals for improving visibility in national parks and wilderness areas (also known as Class I areas) and to develop long-term strategies for reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause visibility impairment in their own states and for preventing degradation in other states. States must establish a series of interim goals to ensure continued progress. The first planning period specifies setting reasonable progress goals for improving visibility in Class I areas by the year 2018. In July 2005, the EPA promulgated its final regional haze rule guidelines for states to conduct BART determinations for certain covered facilities, including utility boilers, built between 1962 and 1977 that have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of visibility impairing pollution. If it is demonstrated that the emissions from these sources cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area, then BART must be installed by 2018. SJGS SJGS is a source that is subject to the statutory obligations of the CAA to reduce visibility impacts. The State of New Mexico submitted its SIP on the regional haze and interstate transport elements of the visibility rules for review by EPA in June 2011. The SIP found that BART to reduce NOx emissions from SJGS is selective non-catalytic reduction technology (“SNCR”). Nevertheless, in August 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 technology (“SCR”) with stringent NOx emission limits on all four units by September 21, 2016. PNM, the Governor of New Mexico, and NMED petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review EPA's decision and requested EPA to reconsider its decision. The Tenth Circuit denied petitions to stay the effective date of the rule on March 1, 2012. These parties have also formally asked EPA to stay the effective date of the rule. Several environmental groups have intervened in support of EPA. WEG 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 and PNM has intervened in this action. Oral arguments on the merits of the FIP challenges were held in October 2012 in the Tenth Circuit. In accordance with the court's order, the parties have filed supplemental information. No decision has been announced and there is no deadline for a court decision. In litigation involving several environmental groups, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a consent decree, which, as amended, required EPA to issue a final rulemaking on New Mexico's regional haze SIP by November 15, 2012. EPA approved all components of the SIP, except for the NOx BART determination for SJGS. With respect to that element of the SIP, EPA determined that with the FIP in place, it had met its obligation under the consent decree. Because the unchanged compliance deadline of the FIP required PNM to continue to take steps to commence installation of SCRs at SJGS, PNM entered into a contract in October 2012 with an engineering, procurement, and construction contractor to install SCRs on behalf of the SJGS owners. The construction contract, which includes termination provisions in the event that SCRs are determined in the future to be unnecessary, has been suspended through November 1, 2014. PNM estimated the total cost to install SCRs on all four units of SJGS to be between approximately $824 million and $910 million, which amounts include costs for construction management, gross receipts taxes, AFUDC, and other PNM costs, although final costs would be refined through an “open book” subcontractor bidding process. The costs for the project to install SCRs would encompass installation of technology to comply with the NAAQS requirements described below. PNM previously indicated it estimated the cost of SNCRs on all four units of SJGS to be between approximately $85 million and $90 million based on a conceptual design study. Along with the SNCR installation, additional equipment would be required to be installed to meet the NAAQS requirements described below, the cost of which had been estimated to total between approximately $105 million and $110 million for all four units of SJGS. The estimates for SNCRs and the NAAQS requirements include gross receipts taxes, AFUDC, and other PNM costs. Based upon its current SJGS ownership interest, PNM's share of the costs under either SCRs or SNCRs as described above would be about 46.3%. During 2012 and early 2013, PNM engaged in discussions with NMED and EPA regarding an alternative to the FIP and SIP. On February 15, 2013, PNM, NMED, and EPA agreed to pursue a revised plan that could provide a new BART path to comply with federal visibility rules at SJGS. The terms of the non-binding agreement would result in the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 by the end of 2017 and the installation of SNCRs on Units 1 and 4 by the later of January 31, 2016 or 15 months after EPA approval of a revised SIP. The revised plan would require approval by EIB and EPA. NMPRC approval of the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and plans for PNM to acquire power to replace its reduced capacity from SJGS would also be part of implementation. PNM also anticipates requesting approval to recover from ratepayers the unrecovered investment in SJGS Units 2 and 3 and costs incurred to retire those units. PNM anticipates filing for the required NMPRC approvals in December 2013. On July 10, 2013, the NMPRC issued an order initiating a proceeding regarding the possible retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and impacts on service reliability, and other items. The order requires PNM to make monthly presentations to the NMPRC on this matter. At June 30, 2013, PNM's net book value of SJGS Units 2 and 3 was approximately $289 million. In accordance with the revised plan, PNM submitted a new BART analysis to the NMED on April 1, 2013, reflecting the terms of the non-binding agreement, including the installation of SNCRs on Units 1 and 4 and the retirement of Units 2 and 3, NMED developed a revised SIP and submitted it to the EIB for approval in May 2013. The EIB will conduct a public hearing on the revised SIP on September 5 and 6, 2013. Upon approval by EIB, the revised SIP will be submitted to EPA for approval. EIB approval is projected for the fourth quarter of 2013, with EPA action in late 2014. Due to the long lead times on certain equipment purchases, PNM is taking steps to prepare for the potential installation of SNCRs on Units 1 and 4. In April 2013, PNM issued an RFP for SNCR system design and technology. In May 2013, PNM entered into an SNCR equipment and related services contract with an SNCR technology provider, but has not yet entered into a construction and procurement contract. In connection with the implementation of the plan, retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 could result in shifts in ownership among SJGS owners as may be agreed upon by the owners, including PNM acquiring additional ownership in SJGS Unit 4. Owners of the affected units also may seek approvals of their utility commissions or governing boards. This revised plan primarily focuses on how SJGS would meet the regional haze rule, but also indicates that PNM would build a natural gas-fired generating plant to be sited at SJGS to partially replace the capacity from the retired coal units. Detailed replacement power strategies also would be finalized. PNM believes adequate replacement power alternatives will be available to meet its generation needs and ensure reliability. Contemporaneously with the signing of the non-binding agreement, EPA indicated in writing that if the terms agreed to do not move forward due to circumstances outside of the control of PNM and NMED, EPA will work with the State of New Mexico and PNM to create a reasonable FIP compliance schedule to reflect the time used to develop the revised SIP. PNM is also exploring potential additional areas of relief, including relief from the Tenth Circuit. On February 25, 2013, the parties filed their status reports with the Tenth Circuit. To demonstrate that progress has been made toward settling the Tenth Circuit litigation, information, including the non-binding agreement and its accompanying timeline, was submitted to the Tenth Circuit. Following the parties' submission of their status reports, on February 28, 2013, the Tenth Circuit referred the litigation to the Tenth Circuit Mediation Office, which has authority to require the parties to attend mediation conferences to informally resolve issues in the pending appeals. If the February 15, 2013 plan described above is implemented, PNM currently estimates its share of the costs to install SNCRs and the additional equipment to comply with NAAQS requirements on SJGS Units 1 and 4 would be approximately $60 million to $80 million, including gross receipts taxes, AFUDC, and other PNM costs. This amount is based on the anticipation that PNM's ownership share of SJGS Units 1 and 4 would aggregate to approximately 52%. PNM also estimates that the cost of replacing a portion of PNM's share of the reduction in generating capacity due to the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 with identified gas-fired peaking capacity would be approximately $280 million. Neither of these amounts is included in PNM's current construction expenditure forecast since approval of the plan is subject to numerous conditions. Additional base load generating capacity may be required to replace a portion of retired SJGS capacity. Although the nature of additional base load capacity has not yet been identified, it could come from PVNGS Unit 3 or additional gas-fired generation. Operating costs would also increase with the installation of either SCRs or SNCRs. PNM can provide no assurance that the requirements of the plan agreed to on February 15, 2013 will be accomplished at all or within the required timeframes. If the February 15, 2013 plan is not implemented, PNM would seek to work with NMED and EPA to develop a revised timetable for implementation of the FIP. If an agreement on a revised timetable cannot be reached, PNM will likely be unable to complete the installation of SCRs on all four units at SJGS by the FIP deadline of September 21, 2016. In such event, PNM would likely seek relief from the compliance deadline from EPA or the Tenth Circuit in order to continue to be able to operate the plant during the completion of the installation process. If relief is not granted, PNM could be forced to temporarily cease operation of some or all of the SJGS units. If a shutdown was required, PNM would then have to acquire temporary replacement power through short-term or open-market purchases in order to serve the needs of its customers. There can be no assurance that sufficient replacement power will be available to serve PNM's needs or, if available, what costs would be incurred. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters or what additional pollution control equipment will be required at SJGS. PNM will seek recovery from its ratepayers for all costs that may be incurred as a result of the CAA requirements. Although the additional equipment and other final requirements will result in additional capital and 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 CAA, 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 August 6, 2012, EPA issued its final BART determination for Four Corners. The rule includes two compliance alternatives. The first emission control strategy finalized by EPA would require the installation of post-combustion controls, including SCRs, on each of Units 1-5 at Four Corners to reduce NOx emissions. Under the second emission control alternative, the owners of Four Corners would have the option to close permanently Units 1-3 by January 1, 2014 and install SCR post-combustion NOx controls on each of Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018. For particulate matter emissions, EPA is requiring Units 4 and 5 to meet an emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBTU and the plant to meet a 20% opacity limit, both of which are achievable through operation of the existing baghouses. Although unrelated to BART, the final BART rule also imposes a 20% opacity limitation on certain fugitive dust emissions from Four Corners' coal and material handling operations. Under the EPA's final BART determination, the Four Corners participants had until July 1, 2013 to notify EPA of which emission control strategy Four Corners would follow. On June 19, 2013, APS requested EPA to extend the notification date to December 31, 2013 due to new uncertainties surrounding the potential impacts of the May 9, 2013 announcement by the Arizona Corporation Commission ("ACC"), which regulates APS, to examine whether to deregulate the state's electric market and introduce open competition to consumers. On July 11, 2013, EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register granting the extension. 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, 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 BART determination for Four Corners. PNM estimates its share of costs, including PNM's AFUDC, to be up to approximately $75 million for post-combustion controls at Four Corners Units 4 and 5. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that are ultimately incurred. PNM has no ownership interest in Four Corners Units 1, 2, and 3. 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 Four Corners. 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. A principal remaining condition to closing is the negotiation and execution of a new coal supply contract for Four Corners on terms reasonably acceptable to APS. See Coal Supply below. APS has announced that, if APS's purchase of SCE's interests in Units 4 and 5 at Four Corners is consummated, it will shut down Units 1, 2, and 3 at Four Corners. In light of the ACC's announcement to re-examine whether to deregulate the retail electric market in Arizona, APS has announced that it currently expects it will not be in a position to close the Four Corners purchase transaction with SCE until the ACC's intentions with regard to pursuing deregulation in Arizona become clearer. Four Corners BART FIP Challenge On October 22, 2012, WEG filed a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit challenging the Four Corners BART FIP. In its petition, WEG alleges that the final BART rule results in more air pollution being emitted into the air than allowed by law and that EPA failed to follow the requirements of the ESA. APS intervened in this matter and filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction or alternatively to transfer the lawsuit to the Tenth Circuit. On February 25, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied APS' motion to dismiss, but granted the request to transfer the case to the Tenth Circuit. This matter is now proceeding in the Tenth Circuit. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact. Regional Haze Challenges On December 27, 2012, WEG filed a petition for review in the Tenth Circuit challenging the SO₂ and particulate matter emissions elements of EPA's approval of New Mexico's Regional Haze SIP. On February 26, 2013, HEAL Utah and other environmental groups filed petitions in the Tenth Circuit challenging EPA's final approval of the remaining elements of New Mexico's Regional Haze SIP, as well as EPA's approval of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board SIP. PNM was granted intervention in both matters and the Tenth Circuit consolidated the two matters based on the similarity of issues. The parties are in the process of briefing their respective positions. PNM is continuing to evaluate the impacts of these matters, but is unable to predict their ultimate outcomes. SJGS Operating Permit Challenge On February 16, 2012, EPA issued its response to a WEG petition objecting to SJGS's operating permit granted by the NMED in January 2011. In its order, EPA required NMED to provide clarification on several of the matters raised by WEG. EPA's order in this matter does not constitute a finding that the plant has violated any provision of the CAA or that it has violated any emission limits. In August 2012, NMED issued a response to the EPA order stating that SJGS's operating permit would be reopened to make certain modifications to the permit. NMED issued a public notice regarding proposed modifications to the SJGS operating permit on September 19, 2012 and issued a revised operating permit on November 26, 2012. The revised permit includes changes to the SO₂ and particulate matter emission limits that were previously incorporated into the SJGS NSR permit. In addition, the revised permit requires PNM to submit a compliance plan to address carbon monoxide (“CO”) emissions increases at SJGS Unit 2. PNM submitted a compliance plan in May 2013 and considers this matter resolved. WEG v. OSM NEPA Lawsuit In February 2013, WEG filed a Petition for Review in the United States District Court of Colorado against OSM challenging federal administrative decisions affecting seven different mines in four states issued at various times from 2007 through 2012. In its petition, WEG challenges several unrelated mining plan modification approvals, which were each separately approved by OSM. Of the fifteen claims for relief in the WEG Petition, two concern SJCC's San Juan mine. WEG's allegations concerning the San Juan mine arise from OSM administrative actions in 2008. WEG alleges various National Environmental Policy Act violations against OSM including, but not limited to, OSM's alleged failure to provide requisite public notice and participation, alleged failure to analyze certain environmental impacts, and alleged reliance on outdated and insufficient documents. WEG's petition seeks various forms of relief, including voiding, reversing and remanding the various mining modification approvals, enjoining the federal defendants from re-issuing the mining plan approvals for the mines, and enjoining operations at the seven mines. SJCC intervened in this matter and seeks to sever SJCC's claims from the lawsuit and transfer venue to the New Mexico federal court. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) The CAA requires EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. EPA has set NAAQS for certain pollutants, including NOx, SO₂,ozone, and particulate matter. In 2010, EPA updated the primary NOx and SO₂ NAAQS to include a 1-hour maximum standard while retaining the annual standards for NOx and SO₂and the 24-hour SO₂ standard. New Mexico is in attainment for the 1-hour NOx NAAQS. EPA has issued draft guidance on how to determine whether areas in a state comply with the new 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS. On May 21, 2013, the EPA released draft guidance on characterizing air quality in areas with limited or no monitoring data near existing SO₂ sources. This characterization will result in these areas being designated as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for compliance with the 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS. Although the determination process has not been finalized, PNM believes that compliance with the 1-hour SO₂ standard may require operational changes and/or equipment modifications at SJGS. On June 4, 2013, Sierra Club and National Resource Defense Council issued a NOI to sue EPA for failure to issue non-attainment designations for areas they claim to be in violation of the 2010 1-hour SO₂ standard. On April 6, 2012, PNM filed an application for an amendment to its air permit for SJGS, which would be required for the installation of either SCRs or SNCRs described above. In addition, this application included a proposal by PNM to install equipment modifications for the purpose of reducing fugitive emissions, including NOx, SO₂, and particulate matter. These modifications would help SJGS meet the NAAQS. It is anticipated that this technology would be installed at the same time as the installation of regional haze BART controls, in order to most efficiently and cost effectively conduct construction activities at SJGS. The cost of this technology is dependent upon the type of control technology that is ultimately determined to be NOx BART at SJGS. See Regional Haze - SJGS above. EPA finalized revisions to its NAAQS for fine particulate matter on December 14, 2012. PNM is currently evaluating the impact of the revised standard on SJGS and its operations. 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. EPA is reviewing its 2008 standard and is scheduled to propose a new standard in December 2013 and finalize it by the end of 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 install further NOx controls to meet a new ozone NAAQS. 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 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. In May 2011, PNM entered into an agreement with NMED and the plaintiffs to resolve a dispute over the applicable NOx emission limits under the Consent Decree. Under the agreement, so long as the NOx emissions limits imposed under the EPA FIP and the New Mexico SIP meet a specified emissions limit, and PNM does not challenge these limits, the parties' dispute is deemed settled. In May 2010, PNM filed a petition with the federal district court seeking a judicial determination on a 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, which are currently $0.6 million, to a total of $6.1 million. The court appointed a special master to evaluate the technical arguments in the case and to address the detection and determination limits of the mercury monitors at SJGS and the appropriate brominated activated carbon injection rate that maximizes the reduction of mercury emissions from SJGS. The special master issued a report indicating he was unable to make a determination on either of these issues. In September 2012, PNM submitted objections to certain portions of the special master report and requested an evidentiary hearing. Also in September 2012, NMED and plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to affirm certain findings in the special master report and order PNM to conduct additional mercury testing. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter. 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. 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 Clean Air Act Lawsuit In October 2011, Earthjustice, on behalf of several environmental organizations, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico against APS and the other Four Corners participants alleging violations of the NSR provisions of the CAA and NSPS violations. The plaintiffs seek to have the court enjoin operations at Four Corners until APS applies for and obtains any required NSR permits and complies with the NSPS. The plaintiffs further request the court to order the payment of civil penalties, including a beneficial mitigation project. The case is being held in abeyance while the parties seek to negotiate a settlement. On March 30, 2013, upon joint motion of the parties, the court issued an order deeming the motions to dismiss withdrawn without prejudice during pendency of the stay. At such time as the stay is lifted, the Four Corners participants may reinstate their motions to dismiss without risk of default. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact. 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. 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. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of these matters or the range of their potential impacts. Endangered Species Act In January 2011, the Center for Biological Diversity, Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, and San Juan Citizens Alliance filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the OSM and the DOI, alleging that OSM failed to engage in mandatory ESA consultation with the United States 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 requested 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 was a party to the lawsuit. On March 14, 2012, the Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs' lawsuit without prejudice. On May 14, 2012, the plaintiffs appealed the Court's order to the Tenth Circuit. On July 8, 2013, the Tenth Circuit entered an order dismissing the appeal. 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 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. 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. The proposed rule would require 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. EPA was required to issue a final rule by June 27, 2013; however, that date has been extended to November 4, 2013. 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. Effluent Limitation Guidelines On June 7, 2013, EPA published proposed revised effluent limitation guidelines establishing technology-based wastewater discharge limitations for steam electric power plants. EPA's proposal offers numerous options that target metals and other pollutants in wastewater streams originating from fly ash and bottom ash handling activities, scrubber activities, and non-chemical metal cleaning wastes operations. EPA is subject to a consent decree deadline to finalize the revised guidelines by May 22, 2014. PNM is in the process of reviewing the proposed rule to assess the impact to SJGS and Reeves Station, the only PNM-operated power plants that would be covered by the proposed rule. APS is currently assessing the impact to Four Corners. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or if it will have a material impact on PNM's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. 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. In January 2013, NMED notified PNM that monitoring results from April 2012 showed elevated concentrations of nitrate in three monitoring wells and an increase in free-phase hydrocarbons in another well. None of these wells are routinely monitored as part of PNM's obligations under the settlement agreement. In April 2013, NMED conducted the same level of testing on the wells as was conducted in April 2012, but has not yet provided PNM any data from the recent tests. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter, but does not believe the former generating station is the source of the nitrates or the increased levels of free-phase hydrocarbons. Coal Combustion Byproducts Waste Disposal 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. 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. An OSM CCB rulemaking team has been formed to develop a proposed rule. On April 5, 2012, several environmental groups, including Sierra Club, filed a citizen suit in the D.C. Circuit 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 asked the court to direct EPA to complete its review of the regulation of CCBs and a hazardous waste analytical procedure and to issue necessary revisions of such regulations as soon as possible. Two industry group members subsequently filed separate lawsuits in the D.C. Circuit seeking to ensure that disposal of coal ash would not be regulated as a hazardous waste. The environmental and industry lawsuits have been consolidated. PNM advocates for the non-hazardous regulation of CCBs. However, if CCBs are ultimately regulated as a hazardous waste, costs could increase significantly. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that are ultimately incurred. 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. Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAPs”) Rulemaking In December 2011, the EPA issued its final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”) 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 has determined that no additional equipment will be required at Four Corners to comply with the rule. 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. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, prepayments for coal, which are included in other current assets, amounted to $14.9 million and $9.9 million. These amounts reflect delivery of a portion of the prepaid coal and its utilization due to the mine fire incident described below. 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 SJGS through December 31, 2017. APS purchases all of Four Corners' coal requirements from a supplier that is also a subsidiary of BHP and has a long-term lease of coal reserves with the Navajo Nation. The Four Corners coal contract runs through July 6, 2016 with pricing determined using an escalating base-price. In December 2012, BHP announced that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Navajo Nation setting out the key terms under which the coal mine would be sold to the Navajo Nation. The BHP subsidiary would be retained as the mine manager and operator until July 2016. Key terms of the new coal supply contract are being finalized by the Navajo Nation and the Four Corners owners. As a result of this proposed change in ownership, APS expected that a new coal supply contract would be executed upon completion of negotiations and following the endorsement of the transfer of ownership to a new Navajo Nation commercial enterprise to be established by the Navajo Nation Tribal Council. On April 29, 2013, the Navajo Nation Tribal Council approved the creation of the new commercial enterprise with sufficient power and authority to execute the transaction with BHP. These negotiations, and the related transaction whereby full ownership of the coal mine would be transferred to the Navajo Nation, are proceeding. See The Clean Air Act - Regional Haze - Four Corners above. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. 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, remaining payments for mine reclamation, in future dollars, are estimated to be $58.9 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $19.7 million for the underground mine at SJGS as of June 30, 2013. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, liabilities, in current dollars, of $25.4 million and $26.8 million for surface mine reclamation and $4.5 million and $4.2 million for underground mine reclamation were recorded in other deferred credits. PNM collects a provision for surface and underground mine reclamation costs in its rates. The NMPRC has capped the amount that can be collected from ratepayers for final reclamation of the surface mines at $100.0 million. Previously, PNM recorded a regulatory asset for the $100.0 million and recovers the amortization of this regulatory asset in rates. 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. On September 12, 2011, SJCC informed PNM that the fire was extinguished. However, MSHA required sealing the incident area and confirmation of a noncombustible environment before allowing re-entry of the sealed area. SJCC regained entry into the sealed area of the mine in early March 2012. On May 4, 2012, SJCC received approval from MSHA and resumed longwall mining operations. If further difficulties occur in the longwall mining operation, 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. The costs of the mine recovery flowed through the cost-reimbursable component of the coal supply agreement. PNM anticipates that it will recover through its FPPAC the portion of such costs allocable to its customers subject to New Mexico regulation. PNM's filings with the NMPRC reflect an estimate that this incident increased coal costs and the deferral of cost recovery under the FPPAC by $21.6 million. SJCC has submitted an insurance claim regarding the costs it incurred due to the mine fire. Any recovery obtained by SJCC through its insurance carrier may be reimbursable (in whole or in part) to PNM through the coal sales agreement. Any insurance recovery would be flowed through PNM's FPPAC to the extent it relates to increased coal costs included in the FPPAC. The potential impacts of any insurance settlement cannot be determined at the current time. 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. Nuclear Fuel In late August 2012, one of PVNGS's suppliers that converts uranium concentrates to uranium hexafluoride invoked the force majeure provision in its contract when it shut down its conversion plant due to regulatory compliance issues. The issues have been resolved and the conversion plant has restarted. The PVNGS participants are continually identifying their future nuclear fuel resource needs and negotiating arrangements to fill those needs. The PVNGS participants have sufficient strategic reserves of enriched uranium such that they do not anticipate a short-term impact on nuclear fuel supplies as a result of the force majeure declaration. PVNGS Liability and Insurance Matters Liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Act, which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both private sources and an industry retrospective payment plan. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, 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”). Effective April 1, 2013, a sublimit of $1.5 billion for non-nuclear property damage losses has been enacted to the primary policy offered by NEIL. If NEIL's losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, PNM is subject to retrospective assessments of $4.3 million for each retrospective assessment declared by NEIL's Board of Directors. The insurance coverages discussed in this and the previous paragraph are subject to policy conditions and exclusions. 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, Afton, Luna, and Lordsburg. Water availability does not appear to be an issue for these plants at this time. However, prolonged drought, ESA activities and a Federal lawsuit by the State of Texas suing the State of New Mexico over water allocations could pose a threat of reduced water availability for these plants. 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. This agreement has been extended through 2016. In addition, in the case of water shortage, PNM, APS, and BHP have reached agreement with the Jicarilla Apache Nation on a supplemental contract relating to water for SJGS and Four Corners that runs through 2016. Although PNM 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 PNM 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 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, including water used at Four Corners and SJGS. PNM was made a defendant in the litigation in 1976. In March 2009, President Obama signed legislation confirming a 2005 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. The court recently issued an order finding that no evidentiary hearing is warranted in the Navajo Nation proceeding, and that it will be issuing an order addressing the issues raised by the parties at some point in the future. This order must be entered no later than December 31, 2013, pursuant to the 2005 settlement. 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. Complaint Against Southwestern Public Service Company In September 2005, PNM filed a complaint under the Federal Power Act against SPS alleging SPS overcharged 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 2008, FERC issued its order in the Golden Spread proceeding affirming that SPS violated its fuel cost adjustment clause tariffs, but shortening 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. Navajo Nation Allottee Matters 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 and allege 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. 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. Briefings on the merits of the appeal are complete and a decision 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. In a separate matter, in September 2012, forty-three landowners claiming to be Navajo allottees filed a notice of appeal with the BIA appealing a March 2011 decision of the BIA Regional Director regarding renewal of a right-of-way for a PNM transmission line. The allottees, many of whom are also allottees in the above matter, generally allege that they were not paid fair market value for the right-of-way, that they were denied the opportunity to make a showing as to their view of fair market value, and thus denied due process. PNM is participating in this matter in order to preserve its interests regarding the right-of-way implicated in the appeal. PNM cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding or the range of potential outcomes at this time. TGP Complaint On March 2, 2012, TGP Granada, LLC and its affiliate (collectively, “TGP”) filed a complaint at FERC against PNM and Tortoise Capital Resources Corp. (“TTO”). PNM owns 60% of the EIP and leases the other 40% from TTO. PNM's lease of the portion of the EIP owned by TTO expires on April 1, 2015. The lease provides PNM the option, with 24 months advance notice, of purchasing the leased assets at the end of the lease for fair market value, as well as options to renew the lease. TGP's filing requested FERC to direct PNM and TTO to identify the party that will immediately assume the obligation of making transmission capacity on the EIP available to customers for use after the April 1, 2015 expiration of the EIP lease agreement. TGP also requested a declaratory order or waiver regarding certain provisions of PNM's Open Access Transmission Tariff to allow its affiliate to change the point-of-receipt associated with a transmission service agreement related to the EIP without losing its transmission service priority. On July 5, 2012, FERC issued an order denying TGP's requests for declaratory order and waiver. In addition, FERC directed PNM, in consultation with TTO, to identify the party that will provide long-term transmission service over the leased portion of the EIP. On November 1, 2012, PNM and TTO entered into a definitive agreement for PNM to exercise the option to purchase on April 1, 2015 the leased capacity at fair market value, which the parties agreed would be $7.7 million. The lease remains in existence and PNM will record the purchase at the termination of the lease on April 1, 2015. The definitive agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which PNM would also assume responsibility for scheduling long-term transmission service on the leased capacity. In November 2012, PNM requested the necessary FERC approvals for the definitive agreement. In January 2013, FERC approved PNM's requests. On February 8, 2013, FERC issued an order dismissing as moot a motion filed by TGP for clarification of FERC's July 5, 2012 order. Since no rehearing request or appeal was filed, the February 8, 2013 order is final and non-appealable.

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 periodically participates in the investigation and remediation of various sites. In addition, the Company occasionally enters into financial commitments in connection with its business operations. The Company is also involved in various legal and regulatory (Note 10) 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 and regulatory proceedings on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

With respect to some of the items listed below, the Company has determined that a loss is not probable or that, to the extent probable, cannot be reasonably estimated. In some cases, the Company is not able to predict with any degree of certainty the range of possible loss that could be incurred. 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.

Additional information concerning commitments and contingencies is contained in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2012 Annual Reports on Form 10-K.

Commitments and Contingencies Related to the Environment

Nuclear Spent Fuel and Waste Disposal

Nuclear power plant operators are required to enter into spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE that require the DOE to accept and dispose of all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes generated by domestic power reactors. Although the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required the DOE to develop a permanent repository for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel by 1998, the DOE announced that it would not be able to open the repository by 1998 and sought to excuse its performance under the contract. In November 1997, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision preventing the DOE from excusing its own delay, but refused to order the DOE to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel. Based on this decision and the DOE's delay, a number of utilities, including APS (on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS owners, including PNM), filed damages actions against the DOE in the Court of Federal Claims. The PVNGS owners previously received a damages award for costs incurred through December 2006. APS filed a subsequent lawsuit, on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS owners, against DOE in the Court of Federal Claims on December 19, 2012. The lawsuit alleges that from January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2011, APS, as a co-owner of PVNGS, incurred additional damages due to DOE's continuing failure to remove spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from PVNGS. Activities in this legal proceeding are currently limited to review by the government of supporting information for APS's claim. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. 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 during the term of the operating licenses. PNM accrues these costs as a component of fuel expense as the fuel is consumed. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, PNM had a liability for interim storage costs of $12.3 million and $13.9 million included in other deferred credits.

On June 8, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision on a challenge by several states and environmental groups of the NRC's rulemaking regarding temporary storage and permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel. The petitioners had challenged the NRC's 2010 update to the agency's Waste Confidence Decision. The D.C. Circuit found that the agency's 2010 Waste Confidence Decision update constituted a major federal action, which requires either an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact from the agency's actions. The D.C. Circuit found that the NRC's evaluation of the environmental risks from spent nuclear was deficient, and therefore remanded the 2010 Waste Confidence Decision update for further action. In September 2012, the NRC issued a directive to its staff to proceed with development of a generic environmental impact statement to support an updated Waste Confidence Decision within 24 months. PNM is unable to predict the impact that the decision may have on the operation of PVNGS.

The Clean Air Act

Regional Haze

In 1999, EPA developed a regional haze program and regional haze rules under the CAA. The rule directs each of the 50 states to address regional haze. Pursuant to the CAA, states have the primary role to regulate visibility requirements by promulgating SIPs. States are required to establish goals for improving visibility in national parks and wilderness areas (also known as Class I areas) and to develop long-term strategies for reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause visibility impairment in their own states and for preventing degradation in other states. States must establish a series of interim goals to ensure continued progress. The first planning period specifies setting reasonable progress goals for improving visibility in Class I areas by the year 2018. In July 2005, the EPA promulgated its final regional haze rule guidelines for states to conduct BART determinations for certain covered facilities, including utility boilers, built between 1962 and 1977 that have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of visibility impairing pollution. If it is demonstrated that the emissions from these sources cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area, then BART must be installed by 2018.

SJGS

SJGS is a source that is subject to the statutory obligations of the CAA to reduce visibility impacts. The State of New Mexico submitted its SIP on the regional haze and interstate transport elements of the visibility rules for review by EPA in June 2011. The SIP found that BART to reduce NOx emissions from SJGS is selective non-catalytic reduction technology (“SNCR”). Nevertheless, in August 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 technology (“SCR”) with stringent NOx emission limits on all four units by September 21, 2016.

PNM, the Governor of New Mexico, and NMED petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review EPA's decision and requested EPA to reconsider its decision. The Tenth Circuit denied petitions to stay the effective date of the rule on March 1, 2012. These parties have also formally asked EPA to stay the effective date of the rule. Several environmental groups have intervened in support of EPA. WEG 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 and PNM has intervened in this action. Oral arguments on the merits of the FIP challenges were held in October 2012 in the Tenth Circuit. In accordance with the court's order, the parties have filed supplemental information. No decision has been announced and there is no deadline for a court decision.

In litigation involving several environmental groups, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a consent decree, which, as amended, required EPA to issue a final rulemaking on New Mexico's regional haze SIP by November 15, 2012. EPA approved all components of the SIP, except for the NOx BART determination for SJGS. With respect to that element of the SIP, EPA determined that with the FIP in place, it had met its obligation under the consent decree.

Because the unchanged compliance deadline of the FIP required PNM to continue to take steps to commence installation of SCRs at SJGS, PNM entered into a contract in October 2012 with an engineering, procurement, and construction contractor to install SCRs on behalf of the SJGS owners. The construction contract, which includes termination provisions in the event that SCRs are determined in the future to be unnecessary, has been suspended through November 1, 2014. PNM estimated the total cost to install SCRs on all four units of SJGS to be between approximately $824 million and $910 million, which amounts include costs for construction management, gross receipts taxes, AFUDC, and other PNM costs, although final costs would be refined through an “open book” subcontractor bidding process. The costs for the project to install SCRs would encompass installation of technology to comply with the NAAQS requirements described below.

PNM previously indicated it estimated the cost of SNCRs on all four units of SJGS to be between approximately $85 million and $90 million based on a conceptual design study. Along with the SNCR installation, additional equipment would be required to be installed to meet the NAAQS requirements described below, the cost of which had been estimated to total between approximately $105 million and $110 million for all four units of SJGS. The estimates for SNCRs and the NAAQS requirements include gross receipts taxes, AFUDC, and other PNM costs.

Based upon its current SJGS ownership interest, PNM's share of the costs under either SCRs or SNCRs as described above would be about 46.3%.

During 2012 and early 2013, PNM engaged in discussions with NMED and EPA regarding an alternative to the FIP and SIP. On February 15, 2013, PNM, NMED, and EPA agreed to pursue a revised plan that could provide a new BART path to comply with federal visibility rules at SJGS. The terms of the non-binding agreement would result in the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 by the end of 2017 and the installation of SNCRs on Units 1 and 4 by the later of January 31, 2016 or 15 months after EPA approval of a revised SIP. The revised plan would require approval by EIB and EPA.

NMPRC approval of the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and plans for PNM to acquire power to replace its reduced capacity from SJGS would also be part of implementation. PNM also anticipates requesting approval to recover from ratepayers the unrecovered investment in SJGS Units 2 and 3 and costs incurred to retire those units. PNM anticipates filing for the required NMPRC approvals in December 2013. On July 10, 2013, the NMPRC issued an order initiating a proceeding regarding the possible retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and impacts on service reliability, and other items. The order requires PNM to make monthly presentations to the NMPRC on this matter. At June 30, 2013, PNM's net book value of SJGS Units 2 and 3 was approximately $289 million.

In accordance with the revised plan, PNM submitted a new BART analysis to the NMED on April 1, 2013, reflecting the terms of the non-binding agreement, including the installation of SNCRs on Units 1 and 4 and the retirement of Units 2 and 3, NMED developed a revised SIP and submitted it to the EIB for approval in May 2013. The EIB will conduct a public hearing on the revised SIP on September 5 and 6, 2013. Upon approval by EIB, the revised SIP will be submitted to EPA for approval. EIB approval is projected for the fourth quarter of 2013, with EPA action in late 2014.

Due to the long lead times on certain equipment purchases, PNM is taking steps to prepare for the potential installation of SNCRs on Units 1 and 4. In April 2013, PNM issued an RFP for SNCR system design and technology. In May 2013, PNM entered into an SNCR equipment and related services contract with an SNCR technology provider, but has not yet entered into a construction and procurement contract.

In connection with the implementation of the plan, retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 could result in shifts in ownership among SJGS owners as may be agreed upon by the owners, including PNM acquiring additional ownership in SJGS Unit 4. Owners of the affected units also may seek approvals of their utility commissions or governing boards.

This revised plan primarily focuses on how SJGS would meet the regional haze rule, but also indicates that PNM would build a natural gas-fired generating plant to be sited at SJGS to partially replace the capacity from the retired coal units. Detailed replacement power strategies also would be finalized. PNM believes adequate replacement power alternatives will be available to meet its generation needs and ensure reliability.

Contemporaneously with the signing of the non-binding agreement, EPA indicated in writing that if the terms agreed to do not move forward due to circumstances outside of the control of PNM and NMED, EPA will work with the State of New Mexico and PNM to create a reasonable FIP compliance schedule to reflect the time used to develop the revised SIP. PNM is also exploring potential additional areas of relief, including relief from the Tenth Circuit.

On February 25, 2013, the parties filed their status reports with the Tenth Circuit. To demonstrate that progress has been made toward settling the Tenth Circuit litigation, information, including the non-binding agreement and its accompanying timeline, was submitted to the Tenth Circuit. Following the parties' submission of their status reports, on February 28, 2013, the Tenth Circuit referred the litigation to the Tenth Circuit Mediation Office, which has authority to require the parties to attend mediation conferences to informally resolve issues in the pending appeals.

If the February 15, 2013 plan described above is implemented, PNM currently estimates its share of the costs to install SNCRs and the additional equipment to comply with NAAQS requirements on SJGS Units 1 and 4 would be approximately $60 million to $80 million, including gross receipts taxes, AFUDC, and other PNM costs. This amount is based on the anticipation that PNM's ownership share of SJGS Units 1 and 4 would aggregate to approximately 52%. PNM also estimates that the cost of replacing a portion of PNM's share of the reduction in generating capacity due to the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 with identified gas-fired peaking capacity would be approximately $280 million. Neither of these amounts is included in PNM's current construction expenditure forecast since approval of the plan is subject to numerous conditions. Additional base load generating capacity may be required to replace a portion of retired SJGS capacity. Although the nature of additional base load capacity has not yet been identified, it could come from PVNGS Unit 3 or additional gas-fired generation. Operating costs would also increase with the installation of either SCRs or SNCRs.

PNM can provide no assurance that the requirements of the plan agreed to on February 15, 2013 will be accomplished at all or within the required timeframes. If the February 15, 2013 plan is not implemented, PNM would seek to work with NMED and EPA to develop a revised timetable for implementation of the FIP. If an agreement on a revised timetable cannot be reached, PNM will likely be unable to complete the installation of SCRs on all four units at SJGS by the FIP deadline of September 21, 2016. In such event, PNM would likely seek relief from the compliance deadline from EPA or the Tenth Circuit in order to continue to be able to operate the plant during the completion of the installation process. If relief is not granted, PNM could be forced to temporarily cease operation of some or all of the SJGS units. If a shutdown was required, PNM would then have to acquire temporary replacement power through short-term or open-market purchases in order to serve the needs of its customers. There can be no assurance that sufficient replacement power will be available to serve PNM's needs or, if available, what costs would be incurred.

PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters or what additional pollution control equipment will be required at SJGS. PNM will seek recovery from its ratepayers for all costs that may be incurred as a result of the CAA requirements. Although the additional equipment and other final requirements will result in additional capital and 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 CAA, 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 August 6, 2012, EPA issued its final BART determination for Four Corners. The rule includes two compliance alternatives. The first emission control strategy finalized by EPA would require the installation of post-combustion controls, including SCRs, on each of Units 1-5 at Four Corners to reduce NOx emissions. Under the second emission control alternative, the owners of Four Corners would have the option to close permanently Units 1-3 by January 1, 2014 and install SCR post-combustion NOx controls on each of Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018. For particulate matter emissions, EPA is requiring Units 4 and 5 to meet an emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBTU and the plant to meet a 20% opacity limit, both of which are achievable through operation of the existing baghouses. Although unrelated to BART, the final BART rule also imposes a 20% opacity limitation on certain fugitive dust emissions from Four Corners' coal and material handling operations. Under the EPA's final BART determination, the Four Corners participants had until July 1, 2013 to notify EPA of which emission control strategy Four Corners would follow. On June 19, 2013, APS requested EPA to extend the notification date to December 31, 2013 due to new uncertainties surrounding the potential impacts of the May 9, 2013 announcement by the Arizona Corporation Commission ("ACC"), which regulates APS, to examine whether to deregulate the state's electric market and introduce open competition to consumers. On July 11, 2013, EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register granting the extension.

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, 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 BART determination for Four Corners. PNM estimates its share of costs, including PNM's AFUDC, to be up to approximately $75 million for post-combustion controls at Four Corners Units 4 and 5. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that are ultimately incurred. PNM has no ownership interest in Four Corners Units 1, 2, and 3. 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 Four Corners. 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. A principal remaining condition to closing is the negotiation and execution of a new coal supply contract for Four Corners on terms reasonably acceptable to APS. See Coal Supply below. APS has announced that, if APS's purchase of SCE's interests in Units 4 and 5 at Four Corners is consummated, it will shut down Units 1, 2, and 3 at Four Corners. In light of the ACC's announcement to re-examine whether to deregulate the retail electric market in Arizona, APS has announced that it currently expects it will not be in a position to close the Four Corners purchase transaction with SCE until the ACC's intentions with regard to pursuing deregulation in Arizona become clearer.

Four Corners BART FIP Challenge

On October 22, 2012, WEG filed a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit challenging the Four Corners BART FIP. In its petition, WEG alleges that the final BART rule results in more air pollution being emitted into the air than allowed by law and that EPA failed to follow the requirements of the ESA. APS intervened in this matter and filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction or alternatively to transfer the lawsuit to the Tenth Circuit. On February 25, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied APS' motion to dismiss, but granted the request to transfer the case to the Tenth Circuit. This matter is now proceeding in the Tenth Circuit. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact.

Regional Haze Challenges

On December 27, 2012, WEG filed a petition for review in the Tenth Circuit challenging the SO₂ and particulate matter emissions elements of EPA's approval of New Mexico's Regional Haze SIP. On February 26, 2013, HEAL Utah and other environmental groups filed petitions in the Tenth Circuit challenging EPA's final approval of the remaining elements of New Mexico's Regional Haze SIP, as well as EPA's approval of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board SIP. PNM was granted intervention in both matters and the Tenth Circuit consolidated the two matters based on the similarity of issues. The parties are in the process of briefing their respective positions. PNM is continuing to evaluate the impacts of these matters, but is unable to predict their ultimate outcomes.

SJGS Operating Permit Challenge

On February 16, 2012, EPA issued its response to a WEG petition objecting to SJGS's operating permit granted by the NMED in January 2011. In its order, EPA required NMED to provide clarification on several of the matters raised by WEG. EPA's order in this matter does not constitute a finding that the plant has violated any provision of the CAA or that it has violated any emission limits.

In August 2012, NMED issued a response to the EPA order stating that SJGS's operating permit would be reopened to make certain modifications to the permit. NMED issued a public notice regarding proposed modifications to the SJGS operating permit on September 19, 2012 and issued a revised operating permit on November 26, 2012. The revised permit includes changes to the SO₂ and particulate matter emission limits that were previously incorporated into the SJGS NSR permit. In addition, the revised permit requires PNM to submit a compliance plan to address carbon monoxide (“CO”) emissions increases at SJGS Unit 2. PNM submitted a compliance plan in May 2013 and considers this matter resolved.

WEG v. OSM NEPA Lawsuit

In February 2013, WEG filed a Petition for Review in the United States District Court of Colorado against OSM challenging federal administrative decisions affecting seven different mines in four states issued at various times from 2007 through 2012. In its petition, WEG challenges several unrelated mining plan modification approvals, which were each separately approved by OSM. Of the fifteen claims for relief in the WEG Petition, two concern SJCC's San Juan mine. WEG's allegations concerning the San Juan mine arise from OSM administrative actions in 2008. WEG alleges various National Environmental Policy Act violations against OSM including, but not limited to, OSM's alleged failure to provide requisite public notice and participation, alleged failure to analyze certain environmental impacts, and alleged reliance on outdated and insufficient documents. WEG's petition seeks various forms of relief, including voiding, reversing and remanding the various mining modification approvals, enjoining the federal defendants from re-issuing the mining plan approvals for the mines, and enjoining operations at the seven mines. SJCC intervened in this matter and seeks to sever SJCC's claims from the lawsuit and transfer venue to the New Mexico federal court. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”)

The CAA requires EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. EPA has set NAAQS for certain pollutants, including NOx, SO₂,ozone, and particulate matter. In 2010, EPA updated the primary NOx and SO₂ NAAQS to include a 1-hour maximum standard while retaining the annual standards for NOx and SO₂and the 24-hour SO₂ standard. New Mexico is in attainment for the 1-hour NOx NAAQS. EPA has issued draft guidance on how to determine whether areas in a state comply with the new 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS. On May 21, 2013, the EPA released draft guidance on characterizing air quality in areas with limited or no monitoring data near existing SO₂ sources. This characterization will result in these areas being designated as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for compliance with the 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS. Although the determination process has not been finalized, PNM believes that compliance with the 1-hour SO₂ standard may require operational changes and/or equipment modifications at SJGS. On June 4, 2013, Sierra Club and National Resource Defense Council issued a NOI to sue EPA for failure to issue non-attainment designations for areas they claim to be in violation of the 2010 1-hour SO₂ standard. On April 6, 2012, PNM filed an application for an amendment to its air permit for SJGS, which would be required for the installation of either SCRs or SNCRs described above. In addition, this application included a proposal by PNM to install equipment modifications for the purpose of reducing fugitive emissions, including NOx, SO₂, and particulate matter. These modifications would help SJGS meet the NAAQS. It is anticipated that this technology would be installed at the same time as the installation of regional haze BART controls, in order to most efficiently and cost effectively conduct construction activities at SJGS. The cost of this technology is dependent upon the type of control technology that is ultimately determined to be NOx BART at SJGS. See Regional Haze - SJGS above.

EPA finalized revisions to its NAAQS for fine particulate matter on December 14, 2012. PNM is currently evaluating the impact of the revised standard on SJGS and its operations.

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. EPA is reviewing its 2008 standard and is scheduled to propose a new standard in December 2013 and finalize it by the end of 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 install further NOx controls to meet a new ozone NAAQS. 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 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. In May 2011, PNM entered into an agreement with NMED and the plaintiffs to resolve a dispute over the applicable NOx emission limits under the Consent Decree. Under the agreement, so long as the NOx emissions limits imposed under the EPA FIP and the New Mexico SIP meet a specified emissions limit, and PNM does not challenge these limits, the parties' dispute is deemed settled.

In May 2010, PNM filed a petition with the federal district court seeking a judicial determination on a 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, which are currently $0.6 million, to a total of $6.1 million. The court appointed a special master to evaluate the technical arguments in the case and to address the detection and determination limits of the mercury monitors at SJGS and the appropriate brominated activated carbon injection rate that maximizes the reduction of mercury emissions from SJGS. The special master issued a report indicating he was unable to make a determination on either of these issues. In September 2012, PNM submitted objections to certain portions of the special master report and requested an evidentiary hearing. Also in September 2012, NMED and plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to affirm certain findings in the special master report and order PNM to conduct additional mercury testing. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

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. 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 Clean Air Act Lawsuit

In October 2011, Earthjustice, on behalf of several environmental organizations, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico against APS and the other Four Corners participants alleging violations of the NSR provisions of the CAA and NSPS violations. The plaintiffs seek to have the court enjoin operations at Four Corners until APS applies for and obtains any required NSR permits and complies with the NSPS. The plaintiffs further request the court to order the payment of civil penalties, including a beneficial mitigation project. The case is being held in abeyance while the parties seek to negotiate a settlement. On March 30, 2013, upon joint motion of the parties, the court issued an order deeming the motions to dismiss withdrawn without prejudice during pendency of the stay. At such time as the stay is lifted, the Four Corners participants may reinstate their motions to dismiss without risk of default. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact.

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

Endangered Species Act

In January 2011, the Center for Biological Diversity, Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, and San Juan Citizens Alliance filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the OSM and the DOI, alleging that OSM failed to engage in mandatory ESA consultation with the United States 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 requested 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 was a party to the lawsuit. On March 14, 2012, the Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs' lawsuit without prejudice. On May 14, 2012, the plaintiffs appealed the Court's order to the Tenth Circuit. On July 8, 2013, the Tenth Circuit entered an order dismissing the appeal.

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 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. 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.

The proposed rule would require 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. EPA was required to issue a final rule by June 27, 2013; however, that date has been extended to November 4, 2013. 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.

Effluent Limitation Guidelines

On June 7, 2013, EPA published proposed revised effluent limitation guidelines establishing technology-based wastewater discharge limitations for steam electric power plants. EPA's proposal offers numerous options that target metals and other pollutants in wastewater streams originating from fly ash and bottom ash handling activities, scrubber activities, and non-chemical metal cleaning wastes operations. EPA is subject to a consent decree deadline to finalize the revised guidelines by May 22, 2014. PNM is in the process of reviewing the proposed rule to assess the impact to SJGS and Reeves Station, the only PNM-operated power plants that would be covered by the proposed rule. APS is currently assessing the impact to Four Corners. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or if it will have a material impact on PNM's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

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. In January 2013, NMED notified PNM that monitoring results from April 2012 showed elevated concentrations of nitrate in three monitoring wells and an increase in free-phase hydrocarbons in another well. None of these wells are routinely monitored as part of PNM's obligations under the settlement agreement. In April 2013, NMED conducted the same level of testing on the wells as was conducted in April 2012, but has not yet provided PNM any data from the recent tests. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter, but does not believe the former generating station is the source of the nitrates or the increased levels of free-phase hydrocarbons.

Coal Combustion Byproducts Waste Disposal

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. 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. An OSM CCB rulemaking team has been formed to develop a proposed rule.

On April 5, 2012, several environmental groups, including Sierra Club, filed a citizen suit in the D.C. Circuit 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 asked the court to direct EPA to complete its review of the regulation of CCBs and a hazardous waste analytical procedure and to issue necessary revisions of such regulations as soon as possible. Two industry group members subsequently filed separate lawsuits in the D.C. Circuit seeking to ensure that disposal of coal ash would not be regulated as a hazardous waste. The environmental and industry lawsuits have been consolidated.

PNM advocates for the non-hazardous regulation of CCBs. However, if CCBs are ultimately regulated as a hazardous waste, costs could increase significantly. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that are ultimately incurred. 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.

Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAPs”) Rulemaking

In December 2011, the EPA issued its final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”) 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 has determined that no additional equipment will be required at Four Corners to comply with the rule.

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. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, prepayments for coal, which are included in other current assets, amounted to $14.9 million and $9.9 million. These amounts reflect delivery of a portion of the prepaid coal and its utilization due to the mine fire incident described below. 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 SJGS through December 31, 2017.

APS purchases all of Four Corners' coal requirements from a supplier that is also a subsidiary of BHP and has a long-term lease of coal reserves with the Navajo Nation. The Four Corners coal contract runs through July 6, 2016 with pricing determined using an escalating base-price. In December 2012, BHP announced that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Navajo Nation setting out the key terms under which the coal mine would be sold to the Navajo Nation. The BHP subsidiary would be retained as the mine manager and operator until July 2016. Key terms of the new coal supply contract are being finalized by the Navajo Nation and the Four Corners owners. As a result of this proposed change in ownership, APS expected that a new coal supply contract would be executed upon completion of negotiations and following the endorsement of the transfer of ownership to a new Navajo Nation commercial enterprise to be established by the Navajo Nation Tribal Council. On April 29, 2013, the Navajo Nation Tribal Council approved the creation of the new commercial enterprise with sufficient power and authority to execute the transaction with BHP. These negotiations, and the related transaction whereby full ownership of the coal mine would be transferred to the Navajo Nation, are proceeding. See The Clean Air Act - Regional Haze - Four Corners above. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

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, remaining payments for mine reclamation, in future dollars, are estimated to be $58.9 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $19.7 million for the underground mine at SJGS as of June 30, 2013. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, liabilities, in current dollars, of $25.4 million and $26.8 million for surface mine reclamation and $4.5 million and $4.2 million for underground mine reclamation were recorded in other deferred credits.

PNM collects a provision for surface and underground mine reclamation costs in its rates. The NMPRC has capped the amount that can be collected from ratepayers for final reclamation of the surface mines at $100.0 million. Previously, PNM recorded a regulatory asset for the $100.0 million and recovers the amortization of this regulatory asset in rates. 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. On September 12, 2011, SJCC informed PNM that the fire was extinguished. However, MSHA required sealing the incident area and confirmation of a noncombustible environment before allowing re-entry of the sealed area. SJCC regained entry into the sealed area of the mine in early March 2012. On May 4, 2012, SJCC received approval from MSHA and resumed longwall mining operations. If further difficulties occur in the longwall mining operation, 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.

The costs of the mine recovery flowed through the cost-reimbursable component of the coal supply agreement. PNM anticipates that it will recover through its FPPAC the portion of such costs allocable to its customers subject to New Mexico regulation. PNM's filings with the NMPRC reflect an estimate that this incident increased coal costs and the deferral of cost recovery under the FPPAC by $21.6 million. SJCC has submitted an insurance claim regarding the costs it incurred due to the mine fire. Any recovery obtained by SJCC through its insurance carrier may be reimbursable (in whole or in part) to PNM through the coal sales agreement. Any insurance recovery would be flowed through PNM's FPPAC to the extent it relates to increased coal costs included in the FPPAC. The potential impacts of any insurance settlement cannot be determined at the current time. 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.

Nuclear Fuel

In late August 2012, one of PVNGS's suppliers that converts uranium concentrates to uranium hexafluoride invoked the force majeure provision in its contract when it shut down its conversion plant due to regulatory compliance issues. The issues have been resolved and the conversion plant has restarted. The PVNGS participants are continually identifying their future nuclear fuel resource needs and negotiating arrangements to fill those needs. The PVNGS participants have sufficient strategic reserves of enriched uranium such that they do not anticipate a short-term impact on nuclear fuel supplies as a result of the force majeure declaration.

PVNGS Liability and Insurance Matters

Liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Act, which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both private sources and an industry retrospective payment plan. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, 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”). Effective April 1, 2013, a sublimit of $1.5 billion for non-nuclear property damage losses has been enacted to the primary policy offered by NEIL. If NEIL's losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, PNM is subject to retrospective assessments of $4.3 million for each retrospective assessment declared by NEIL's Board of Directors. The insurance coverages discussed in this and the previous paragraph are subject to policy conditions and exclusions.

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, Afton, Luna, and Lordsburg. Water availability does not appear to be an issue for these plants at this time. However, prolonged drought, ESA activities and a Federal lawsuit by the State of Texas suing the State of New Mexico over water allocations could pose a threat of reduced water availability for these plants.

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. This agreement has been extended through 2016. In addition, in the case of water shortage, PNM, APS, and BHP have reached agreement with the Jicarilla Apache Nation on a supplemental contract relating to water for SJGS and Four Corners that runs through 2016. Although PNM 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 PNM 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 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, including water used at Four Corners and SJGS. PNM was made a defendant in the litigation in 1976. In March 2009, President Obama signed legislation confirming a 2005 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. The court recently issued an order finding that no evidentiary hearing is warranted in the Navajo Nation proceeding, and that it will be issuing an order addressing the issues raised by the parties at some point in the future. This order must be entered no later than December 31, 2013, pursuant to the 2005 settlement.

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.

Complaint Against Southwestern Public Service Company

In September 2005, PNM filed a complaint under the Federal Power Act against SPS alleging SPS overcharged 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 2008, FERC issued its order in the Golden Spread proceeding affirming that SPS violated its fuel cost adjustment clause tariffs, but shortening 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.

Navajo Nation Allottee Matters

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 and allege 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. 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. Briefings on the merits of the appeal are complete and a decision 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.

In a separate matter, in September 2012, forty-three landowners claiming to be Navajo allottees filed a notice of appeal with the BIA appealing a March 2011 decision of the BIA Regional Director regarding renewal of a right-of-way for a PNM transmission line. The allottees, many of whom are also allottees in the above matter, generally allege that they were not paid fair market value for the right-of-way, that they were denied the opportunity to make a showing as to their view of fair market value, and thus denied due process. PNM is participating in this matter in order to preserve its interests regarding the right-of-way implicated in the appeal. PNM cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding or the range of potential outcomes at this time.

TGP Complaint

On March 2, 2012, TGP Granada, LLC and its affiliate (collectively, “TGP”) filed a complaint at FERC against PNM and Tortoise Capital Resources Corp. (“TTO”). PNM owns 60% of the EIP and leases the other 40% from TTO. PNM's lease of the portion of the EIP owned by TTO expires on April 1, 2015. The lease provides PNM the option, with 24 months advance notice, of purchasing the leased assets at the end of the lease for fair market value, as well as options to renew the lease.

TGP's filing requested FERC to direct PNM and TTO to identify the party that will immediately assume the obligation of making transmission capacity on the EIP available to customers for use after the April 1, 2015 expiration of the EIP lease agreement. TGP also requested a declaratory order or waiver regarding certain provisions of PNM's Open Access Transmission Tariff to allow its affiliate to change the point-of-receipt associated with a transmission service agreement related to the EIP without losing its transmission service priority. On July 5, 2012, FERC issued an order denying TGP's requests for declaratory order and waiver. In addition, FERC directed PNM, in consultation with TTO, to identify the party that will provide long-term transmission service over the leased portion of the EIP.

On November 1, 2012, PNM and TTO entered into a definitive agreement for PNM to exercise the option to purchase on April 1, 2015 the leased capacity at fair market value, which the parties agreed would be $7.7 million. The lease remains in existence and PNM will record the purchase at the termination of the lease on April 1, 2015. The definitive agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which PNM would also assume responsibility for scheduling long-term transmission service on the leased capacity. In November 2012, PNM requested the necessary FERC approvals for the definitive agreement. In January 2013, FERC approved PNM's requests. On February 8, 2013, FERC issued an order dismissing as moot a motion filed by TGP for clarification of FERC's July 5, 2012 order. Since no rehearing request or appeal was filed, the February 8, 2013 order is final and non-appealable.