Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets; Impairments	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Goodwill and Intangible Assets Disclosure [Abstract]
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets; Impairments	Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets; Impairments The excess purchase price over the fair value of the assets acquired and the liabilities assumed by PNMR for its June 6, 2005 acquisition of TNP was recorded as goodwill and was pushed down to the businesses acquired. In 2007, the TNMP assets that were included in its New Mexico operations, including goodwill, were transferred to PNM. Additionally, the trade name “First Choice” and the First Choice customer list were acquired in the TNP acquisition. The trade name was considered to have an indefinite useful life; therefore, no amortization was recorded. The useful life of the customer list was estimated to be approximately eight years. As discussed in Note 3, PNMR completed the sale of First Choice on November 1, 2011. As a result, the goodwill and other intangible assets of First Choice are no longer included in PNMR’s Consolidated Balance Sheet and PNMR no longer has any other intangible assets. GAAP requires the Company to evaluate its goodwill and non-amortizing intangible assets for impairment annually at the reporting unit level or more frequently if circumstances indicate that the goodwill or intangible assets may be impaired. The Company evaluates goodwill impairment as of April 1st of each year. PNMR’s current reporting units that have goodwill are PNM and TNMP. Application of the impairment test requires judgment, including the identification of reporting units, assignment of assets and liabilities to reporting units, and determination of the fair value of each reporting unit. GAAP provides that in certain circumstances an entity may perform a qualitative analysis to conclude that the goodwill of a reporting unit is not impaired. Under a qualitative assessment, an entity considers macroeconomic conditions, industry and market considerations, cost factors, overall financial performance, other relevant entity-specific events affecting a reporting unit, as well as whether a sustained decrease (both absolute and relative to its peers) in share price had occurred. An entity considers the extent to which each of the adverse events and circumstances identified could affect the comparison of a reporting unit’s fair value with its carrying amount. An entity places more weight on the events and circumstances that most affect a reporting unit’s fair value or the carrying amount of its net assets. An entity also considers positive and mitigating events and circumstances that may affect its determination of whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, an entity determines that it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, a quantitative analysis is not required. In other circumstances, an entity may perform a quantitative analysis to reach the conclusion regarding impairment with respect to a reporting unit. The first step of the quantitative impairment test requires an entity to compare the fair value of the reporting unit with its carrying value, including goodwill. If as a result of this analysis, the entity concludes there is an indication of impairment in a reporting unit having goodwill, the entity is required to perform the second step of the impairment analysis, determining the amount of goodwill impairment to be recorded. The amount is calculated by comparing the implied fair value of the goodwill to its carrying amount. This exercise requires the entity to allocate the fair value determined in step one to the individual assets and liabilities of the reporting unit. Any remaining fair value would be the implied fair value of goodwill on the testing date. To the extent the recorded amount of goodwill of a reporting unit exceeds the implied fair value determined in step two, an impairment loss would be reflected in results of operations. Prior to 2012, the Company also compared the fair value of non-amortizing intangibles other than goodwill to the recorded value. An entity may choose to perform a quantitative analysis without performing a qualitative analysis and may perform a qualitative analysis for certain reporting units, but a quantitative analysis for others. Prior to 2013, the Company performed qualitative analyses for all reporting units having goodwill. For the annual evaluation performed as of April 1, 2013, PNMR utilized a qualitative analysis for the TNMP reporting unit and a quantitative analysis for the PNM reporting unit. The 2013 qualitative analysis for the TNMP reporting unit, which has goodwill of $226.7 million, included the consideration of various reporting unit specific factors as well as industry and macroeconomic factors to determine whether these factors were reasonably likely to have a material impact on the fair value of the reporting unit. Factors considered included the results of the April 1, 2012 quantitative analysis, which indicated that fair value exceeded carrying value of the reporting unit by approximately 26%, current and long-term forecasted financial results, regulatory environment, credit rating, interest rate environment, absolute and relative price of PNMR’s common stock, and operating strategy. TNMP believes it is operating within a generally favorable regulatory environment, its historical and forecasted financial results are positive, and its credit is perceived positively. Based on the analysis of the relevant factors, PNMR concluded that it is more likely than not that the fair value of the TNMP reporting unit exceeds its carrying value. For the PNM reporting unit, a discounted cash flow methodology was primarily used as the quantitative analysis to estimate the fair value of the reporting unit. This analysis requires significant judgments, including estimation of future cash flows, which is dependent on internal forecasts, estimation of long-term growth rates for the business, and determination of appropriate weighted average cost of capital for each reporting unit. Changes in these estimates and assumptions could materially affect the determination of fair value and the conclusion of impairment. The April 1, 2013 and 2012 quantitative evaluations indicated the fair value of the PNM reporting unit, which has goodwill of $51.6 million, exceeded its carrying value by approximately 27% and 15%. An increase of 0.5% in the expected return on equity capital utilized in discounting the forecasted cash flows, would have reduced the excess of PNM’s fair value over carrying value to approximately 20% at April 1, 2013. The annual evaluations performed as of April 1, 2013 and 2012 did not indicate impairments of the goodwill of any of PNMR's reporting units. Since the April 1, 2013 annual evaluation, there have been no indications that the fair values of the reporting units with recorded goodwill have decreased below the carrying values. Prior annual evaluations have not indicated impairments of any of PNMR’s reporting units, except in 2008. During 2008, the market capitalization of PNMR’s common stock was significantly below book value. In addition, changes in the ERCOT market significantly impacted the results of operations of First Choice. The financial challenges facing First Choice were exacerbated by the impacts of Hurricane Ike and depressed economic conditions resulting in significant increases in the levels of uncollectible accounts. As a result, the Company recorded goodwill impairments of $51.1 million for PNM, $34.5 million for TNMP, and $88.8 million for First Choice in 2008. Pre-tax impairment losses of $42.6 million for the First Choice trade name and $4.8 million for the First Choice customer list were also recorded in 2008. Since 2008, the price of PNMR’s common stock has increased, improving the relationship between PNMR’s market capitalization and book value. In addition, improved regulatory treatment has been experienced by PNM in New Mexico and by TNMP in Texas. Furthermore, First Choice’s business became more stable, primarily due to more predictable power and fuel price patterns in the ERCOT market. These factors resulted in more predictable earnings and increased fair values of the reporting units. Since 2008, the annual evaluations have not indicated that the fair values of the reporting units with recorded goodwill have decreased below their carrying values.

Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets; Impairments

The excess purchase price over the fair value of the assets acquired and the liabilities assumed by PNMR for its June 6, 2005 acquisition of TNP was recorded as goodwill and was pushed down to the businesses acquired. In 2007, the TNMP assets that were included in its New Mexico operations, including goodwill, were transferred to PNM. Additionally, the trade name “First Choice” and the First Choice customer list were acquired in the TNP acquisition. The trade name was considered to have an indefinite useful life; therefore, no amortization was recorded. The useful life of the customer list was estimated to be approximately eight years. As discussed in Note 3, PNMR completed the sale of First Choice on November 1, 2011. As a result, the goodwill and other intangible assets of First Choice are no longer included in PNMR’s Consolidated Balance Sheet and PNMR no longer has any other intangible assets.

GAAP requires the Company to evaluate its goodwill and non-amortizing intangible assets for impairment annually at the reporting unit level or more frequently if circumstances indicate that the goodwill or intangible assets may be impaired. The Company evaluates goodwill impairment as of April 1st of each year. PNMR’s current reporting units that have goodwill are PNM and TNMP. Application of the impairment test requires judgment, including the identification of reporting units, assignment of assets and liabilities to reporting units, and determination of the fair value of each reporting unit.

GAAP provides that in certain circumstances an entity may perform a qualitative analysis to conclude that the goodwill of a reporting unit is not impaired. Under a qualitative assessment, an entity considers macroeconomic conditions, industry and market considerations, cost factors, overall financial performance, other relevant entity-specific events affecting a reporting unit, as well as whether a sustained decrease (both absolute and relative to its peers) in share price had occurred. An entity considers the extent to which each of the adverse events and circumstances identified could affect the comparison of a reporting unit’s fair value with its carrying amount. An entity places more weight on the events and circumstances that most affect a reporting unit’s fair value or the carrying amount of its net assets. An entity also considers positive and mitigating events and circumstances that may affect its determination of whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, an entity determines that it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, a quantitative analysis is not required.

In other circumstances, an entity may perform a quantitative analysis to reach the conclusion regarding impairment with respect to a reporting unit. The first step of the quantitative impairment test requires an entity to compare the fair value of the reporting unit with its carrying value, including goodwill. If as a result of this analysis, the entity concludes there is an indication of impairment in a reporting unit having goodwill, the entity is required to perform the second step of the impairment analysis, determining the amount of goodwill impairment to be recorded. The amount is calculated by comparing the implied fair value of the goodwill to its carrying amount. This exercise requires the entity to allocate the fair value determined in step one to the individual assets and liabilities of the reporting unit. Any remaining fair value would be the implied fair value of goodwill on the testing date. To the extent the recorded amount of goodwill of a reporting unit exceeds the implied fair value determined in step two, an impairment loss would be reflected in results of operations. Prior to 2012, the Company also compared the fair value of non-amortizing intangibles other than goodwill to the recorded value.

An entity may choose to perform a quantitative analysis without performing a qualitative analysis and may perform a qualitative analysis for certain reporting units, but a quantitative analysis for others. Prior to 2013, the Company performed qualitative analyses for all reporting units having goodwill. For the annual evaluation performed as of April 1, 2013, PNMR utilized a qualitative analysis for the TNMP reporting unit and a quantitative analysis for the PNM reporting unit.

The 2013 qualitative analysis for the TNMP reporting unit, which has goodwill of $226.7 million, included the consideration of various reporting unit specific factors as well as industry and macroeconomic factors to determine whether these factors were reasonably likely to have a material impact on the fair value of the reporting unit. Factors considered included the results of the April 1, 2012 quantitative analysis, which indicated that fair value exceeded carrying value of the reporting unit by approximately 26%, current and long-term forecasted financial results, regulatory environment, credit rating, interest rate environment, absolute and relative price of PNMR’s common stock, and operating strategy. TNMP believes it is operating within a generally favorable regulatory environment, its historical and forecasted financial results are positive, and its credit is perceived positively. Based on the analysis of the relevant factors, PNMR concluded that it is more likely than not that the fair value of the TNMP reporting unit exceeds its carrying value.

For the PNM reporting unit, a discounted cash flow methodology was primarily used as the quantitative analysis to estimate the fair value of the reporting unit. This analysis requires significant judgments, including estimation of future cash flows, which is dependent on internal forecasts, estimation of long-term growth rates for the business, and determination of appropriate weighted average cost of capital for each reporting unit. Changes in these estimates and assumptions could materially affect the determination of fair value and the conclusion of impairment. The April 1, 2013 and 2012 quantitative evaluations indicated the fair value of the PNM reporting unit, which has goodwill of $51.6 million, exceeded its carrying value by approximately 27% and 15%. An increase of 0.5% in the expected return on equity capital utilized in discounting the forecasted cash flows, would have reduced the excess of PNM’s fair value over carrying value to approximately 20% at April 1, 2013.

The annual evaluations performed as of April 1, 2013 and 2012 did not indicate impairments of the goodwill of any of PNMR's reporting units. Since the April 1, 2013 annual evaluation, there have been no indications that the fair values of the reporting units with recorded goodwill have decreased below the carrying values.

Prior annual evaluations have not indicated impairments of any of PNMR’s reporting units, except in 2008. During 2008, the market capitalization of PNMR’s common stock was significantly below book value. In addition, changes in the ERCOT market significantly impacted the results of operations of First Choice. The financial challenges facing First Choice were exacerbated by the impacts of Hurricane Ike and depressed economic conditions resulting in significant increases in the levels of uncollectible accounts. As a result, the Company recorded goodwill impairments of $51.1 million for PNM, $34.5 million for TNMP, and $88.8 million for First Choice in 2008. Pre-tax impairment losses of $42.6 million for the First Choice trade name and $4.8 million for the First Choice customer list were also recorded in 2008. Since 2008, the price of PNMR’s common stock has increased, improving the relationship between PNMR’s market capitalization and book value. In addition, improved regulatory treatment has been experienced by PNM in New Mexico and by TNMP in Texas. Furthermore, First Choice’s business became more stable, primarily due to more predictable power and fuel price patterns in the ERCOT market. These factors resulted in more predictable earnings and increased fair values of the reporting units. Since 2008, the annual evaluations have not indicated that the fair values of the reporting units with recorded goodwill have decreased below their carrying values.