Commitments and Contingencies

Overview

There are various claims and lawsuits pending against the Company. The Company also is 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. Also, the Company is involved in various legal and regulatory (Note 12) 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. Nevertheless, the Company assesses legal and regulatory matters based on current information and makes 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 2013 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 of these requirements. 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. In 2010, the court ordered an award to the PVNGS owners for their damages claim 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, additional damages were incurred due to DOE’s continuing failure to remove spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from PVNGS. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

PNM estimates that it will incur approximately $58.0 million (in 2013 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, 2014 and December 31, 2013, PNM had a liability for interim storage costs of $12.1 million and $11.9 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 EIS 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 fuel 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 EIS to support an updated Waste Confidence Decision within 24 months. In September 2013, the NRC issued its draft EIS to support an updated Waste Confidence Decision. In late 2013, the NRC held a series of nationwide public meetings to receive stakeholder input on the draft EIS. NRC Commissioners have instructed the staff to issue the final generic EIS and rule by no later than September 2014. Untimely resolution by the NRC of the remand from the D.C. Circuit could have an adverse impact on certain NRC licensing actions. Currently, PVNGS does not have any licensing actions pending with the NRC. The petitioners also sought a writ requiring the NRC to comply with the law and resume processing DOE’s pending license application for a nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit ordered the NRC to resume reviewing the license application. PNM is unable to predict the impact of these decisions.

In 2011, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Nuclear Energy Institute challenged DOE’s 2010 determination of the adequacy of the one tenth of a cent per KWh fee (the “one-mill fee”) paid by the nation’s commercial nuclear power plant owners pursuant to their individual contracts with the DOE. The fee applicable to PVNGS Units 1 and 2 is recovered by PNM in its retail rates. In June 2012, the D.C. Circuit held that DOE failed to conduct a sufficient fee analysis in making the 2010 determination. The D.C. Circuit remanded the 2010 determination to the DOE with instructions to conduct a new fee adequacy determination within six months. In February 2013, upon completion of DOE’s revised one-mill fee adequacy determination, the court reopened the proceedings. On November 19, 2013, the D.C. Circuit ordered the DOE to notify Congress of the intent to suspend collecting annual fees for nuclear waste disposal from nuclear power plant operators. In 2013, the one-mill fee for PNM’s share of the output from all three units at PVNGS amounted to $3.0 million. On January 3, 2014, the DOE notified Congress of the intention to suspend collection of the one-mill fee, subject to Congress’ disapproval. On May 16, 2014, the DOE adjusted the fee to zero. PNM anticipates challenges to this action and is unable to predict its ultimate outcome.

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, 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

BART Determination Process – 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 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 the rule’s 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.

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. At the time PNM entered into the contract, 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 were to 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.

Also, PNM had 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 under either SCRs or SNCRs as described above would be about 46.3%.

During 2012 and early 2013, PNM, as the operating agent for SJGS, engaged in discussions with NMED and EPA regarding an alternative to the FIP and SIP. Following approval by a majority of the other SJGS owners, PNM, NMED, and EPA agreed on February 15, 2013 to pursue a revised plan that could provide a new BART path to comply with federal visibility rules at SJGS, subject to approval by the EIB and EPA. 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. Certain aspects of this alternative are subject to approval by the NMPRC. At June 30, 2014, PNM’s net book value of its current ownership share of SJGS Units 2 and 3 was approximately $286 million.

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.

This revised plan primarily focuses on how SJGS would meet the regional haze rule and also indicates that PNM would build a natural gas-fired generating plant in the “four corners” region 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.

It was contemplated that the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 under the revised plan might result in shifts in ownership among SJGS owners or other changes in the contractual cost sharing arrangements, as would be agreed upon by the owners. See SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters below. Owners of the affected units also may be required to seek approvals of their utility commissions or governing boards for any such changes.

The parties file periodic 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. On October 17, 2013, the court ruled on a motion filed by PNM for abatement of the pending petitions for review and seeking deferral of briefing on a simultaneously filed motion to stay the EPA rule. The court placed the pending petitions for review in abeyance and set a schedule for the parties to file status reports. The court ruled that, if at any time the agreement in principle fails or is not implemented as was indicated in the term sheet and timeline, any party to the litigation may file a motion seeking to lift the abatement. PNM is continuing to evaluate the impacts of these matters, but is unable to predict their ultimate outcomes.

Due to the long lead times on certain equipment purchases, PNM began 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 and in July 2014 entered into a contract for management of the SNCR construction, but has not yet entered into a construction and procurement contract.

In accordance with the revised plan, PNM submitted a new BART analysis to 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. After a public hearing, the EIB approved the revised SIP in September 2013 and the revised SIP was submitted to EPA for approval on October 18, 2013. EPA deemed the SIP application complete on December 17, 2013. On April 30, 2014, EPA issued an advance copy of its proposed approval of the revised SIP and it was published in the Federal Register on May 12, 2014. EPA provided a 30 day public comment period, which ended on June 11, 2014. PNM filed comments in support of EPA’s proposed approval. Final EPA action on the revised SIP is expected by about the end of September 2014.

On December 20, 2013, PNM made a filing with the NMPRC requesting certain approvals necessary to effectuate the revised SIP. In this filing, PNM requested:


•	Permission to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 at December 31, 2017 and to recover over 20 years their net book value at that date, estimated to be approximately $205 million, along with a regulated return on those costs


•	A CCN to include PNM’s ownership of PVNGS Unit 3, amounting to 134 MW, as a resource to serve New Mexico retail customers at a proposed value of $2,500 per KW, effective January 1, 2018


•	An order allowing cost recovery for PNM’s share of the installation of SNCR equipment and the additional equipment to comply with NAAQS requirements on SJGS Units 1 and 4, not to exceed a total cost of $82 million


•	A CCN for an exchange of capacity out of SJGS Unit 3 and into SJGS Unit 4, resulting in ownership of an additional 78 MW in Unit 4 for PNM; the net impact of this exchange and the retirement of Units 2 and 3 would be a reduction of 340 MW in PNM’s ownership of SJGS

In its filing, PNM requested the NMPRC to issue its final ruling on the application no later than December 2014. On February 11, 2014, the Hearing Examiner issued an order finding that PNM’s application is complete. The order also stated that there was not a statutory time clock for the request to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 and the statutory time clock on the CCN requests has not yet begun. The Hearing Examiner found that the NMPRC should proceed with the review of PNM’s application and establish a schedule that would allow NMPRC action on the application by the end of 2014.

The above estimate of PNM’s share of the costs to install SNCRs and the additional equipment to comply with NAAQS requirements on SJGS Units 1 and 4 includes gross receipts taxes, AFUDC, and other PNM costs. This amount and the above estimate of net book value of SJGS Units 2 and 3 at December 31, 2017 reflect the requested exchange of 78 MW of capacity out of SJGS Unit 3 and into SJGS Unit 4 resulting in PNM’s ownership share of SJGS Units 1 and 4 aggregating approximately 52%. The December 20, 2013 NMPRC filing identifies a new 177 MW natural gas fired generation source and 40 MW of new utility-scale solar PV generation to replace a portion of PNM’s share of the reduction in generating capacity due to the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3. PNM has included the 40 MW of solar PV facilities in its 2015 Renewable Energy Plan. See Note 12. Specific approvals to acquire other facilities and the treatment of associated costs will be made in future filings. PNM estimates the cost of these identified resources would be approximately $268.3 million. These amounts are included in PNM’s current construction expenditure forecast although approval of the plan remains subject to numerous conditions. Although operating costs will be reduced due to the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3, the operating costs for SJGS Units 1 and 4 would increase with the installation of either SCRs or SNCRs. See Note 12 for additional information concerning PNM’s filing for NMPRC approvals regarding these matters.

As discussed under SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters below, the owners of SJGS are attempting to negotiate agreements concerning numerous matters, the resolution of which is necessary in order to facilitate the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and comply with the revised SIP. PNM’s requests in the December 20, 2013 NMPRC filing were based on the status of the negotiations among the SJGS owners at that time. PNM’s ultimate ownership percentage in SJGS Unit 4 will depend on the final resolution of the negotiations among the SJGS owners and is subject to NMPRC approval. On July 1, 2014, pursuant to an order of the hearing examiner in the case, PNM filed a notice with the NMPRC regarding the status of the negotiations among the SJGS participants, including that the SJGS participants reached non-binding agreements in principle on the ownership restructuring of SJGS, which are memorialized in the resolution and term sheet described below. PNM filed testimony with the NMPRC on July 15, 2014 further describing the proposed terms. The public hearing in the NMPRC case is now scheduled to begin on October 6, 2014. PNM is currently requesting that the NMPRC take action on this case by the end of February 2015.

PNM can provide no assurance that the requirements of the plan agreed to on February 15, 2013 will be accomplished within the required timeframes or at all. 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 need to rely on EPA’s pledge to work with PNM and the State of New Mexico to develop a reasonable FIP compliance plan or otherwise negotiate a solution with EPA or seek relief from the Tenth Circuit in order to continue to be able to operate the plant, including during the installation process for any alternate solution. 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 its share of 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 or willingness of individual participants to continue participation in the plant.

SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters – As discussed in the 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K, SJGS is jointly owned by PNM and eight other entities, including three participants that operate in the State of California. Furthermore, each participant does not have the same ownership interest in each unit. The SJPPA that governs the operation of SJGS expires on July 1, 2022 and the contract with SJCC to supply the coal requirements of the plant expires on December 31, 2017. The California participants have indicated that, under California law, they may be prohibited from making significant capital improvements to SJGS. The California participants have stated they would be unable to fully fund the construction of either SCRs or SNCRs at SJGS and have expressed the intent to exit their ownership in SJGS no later than the expiration of the current SJPPA. One other participant also expressed a similar intent to exit ownership in the plant. The participants intending to exit ownership in SJGS currently own 50.0% of SJGS Unit 3 and 38.8% of SJGS Unit 4. PNM currently owns 50.0% of SJGS Unit 3 and 38.5% of SJGS Unit 4. PNM is unable to predict the actions of the SJGS participants. Likewise, PNM cannot predict the impact of those actions on the ownership of SJGS or the operations of SJGS and PNM.

The SJGS participants have engaged in negotiations concerning the implementation of the revised SIP to address BART at SJGS. These negotiations initially included potential shifts in ownership among participants and between Units 3 and 4 in order to facilitate the shutdown of Units 2 and 3 to comply with the revised SIP and to accommodate the intent of the participants desiring to exit ownership in SJGS. This could have resulted in certain of the continuing participants, including PNM, acquiring additional ownership interests in Unit 4 prior to the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3. Based on the status of negotiations at the time of PNM’s December 20, 2013 NMPRC filing, PNM requested NMPRC approval to exchange 78 MW of its capacity in SJGS Unit 3 for an equal amount of capacity in SJGS Unit 4. The discussions among the SJGS participants regarding restructuring have also included, among other matters, the treatment of plant decommissioning obligations, mine reclamation obligations, environmental matters, and certain ongoing operating costs. The SJGS participants engaged a mediator to assist in facilitating resolution of a number of outstanding matters among the owners.

On June 26, 2014, a non-binding resolution was unanimously approved by the SJGS Coordination Committee. The resolution identifies the participants who would be exiting active participation in SJGS effective December 31, 2017, and participants, including PNM, who would retain an interest in the ongoing operation of one or more units of SJGS. The non-binding resolution provides the essential terms of restructured ownership of SJGS between the exiting participants and the remaining participants and addresses other related matters. The non-binding resolution includes provisions indicating that the exiting participants would remain obligated for their proportionate shares of environmental, mine reclamation, and certain other legacy liabilities that are attributable to activities that occurred prior to their exit, as well as outlining how their shares would be determined. The participants continue to negotiate definitive agreements that would formalize these matters, as well as addressing plant decommissioning liabilities and indemnification. Also, on June 26, 2014, a non-binding term sheet was approved by all of the remaining participants that provides the essential terms of restructured ownership of SJGS among the remaining participants. As part of the non-binding terms, PNM confirmed that it proposes to acquire an additional 132 MW in SJGS Unit 4 effective December 31, 2017, rather than the exchange of 78 MW of capacity in SJGS Unit 3 for 78 MW in SJGS Unit 4 contemplated in the December 20, 2013 NMPRC filing. There would be no initial cost for PNM to acquire the additional 132 MW although PNM’s share of capital improvements, including the costs of installing SNCRs, and operating expenses would increase to reflect the increased ownership. The acquisition of 132 MW of SJGS Unit 4 would result in PNM’s ownership share of SJGS Units 1 and 4 aggregating approximately 59%. PNM’s remaining replacement power plans otherwise remain as previously proposed.

A number of regulatory approvals are required to implement the proposed ownership restructuring of SJGS. Any final binding agreements relating to the ownership restructuring are subject to the approval of each participant’s board or other decision-making body and are subject to required regulatory approvals. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of the negotiations, whether definitive agreements will be reached among the owners, or whether required approvals will be obtained.

The SJPPA requires PNM, as operating agent, to obtain approval of capital improvement project expenditures from participants who have an ownership interest in the relevant unit or property common to more than one unit. As provided in the SJPPA, specified percentages of both the outstanding participant shares, based on MW ownership, and the number of participants in the unit or common property must be obtained in order for a capital improvement project to be approved. PNM presented the SNCR project, including NAAQS compliance requirements, to the SJGS participants in Unit 1 and Unit 4 for approval in late October 2013. The project was approved for Unit 1, but the Unit 4 project, which includes some of the California participants, did not obtain the required percentage of votes for approval. In addition, other capital projects related to Unit 4 were not approved by the participants. The SJPPA provides that PNM, in its capacity as operating agent of SJGS, is authorized and obligated to take reasonable and prudent actions necessary for the successful and proper operation of SJGS pending the resolution, by arbitration or otherwise, of any inability or failure to agree by the participants. PNM must evaluate its responsibilities and obligations as operating agent under the SJPPA regarding the SJGS Unit 4 capital projects that were not approved by the participants and take reasonable and prudent actions as it deems necessary. On March 11, 2014, PNM requested that the owners of Unit 4 approve the expenditure of $1.9 million of costs critical to being able to comply with the time frame in the revised SIP with respect to the Unit 4 project. The Unit 4 owners did not approve the expenditures. Thereafter, PNM, as operating agent for SJGS, issued a “Prudent Utility Practice” notice under the SJPPA indicating PNM was restarting certain critical activities to keep the Unit 4 SNCR project on schedule. On June 27, 2014, PNM requested that the Unit 4 owners approve the expenditure of an additional $6.4 million of costs critical to the next phase of the Unit 4 capital project and compliance with the revised SIP deadline. The Unit 4 owners did not approve the additional expenditures. PNM subsequently issued a notice to the participants on July 14, 2014, that, consistent with “Prudent Utility Practice,” PNM must continue the work on Unit 4 and would begin to incur the additional expenditures. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter, its impact on SJGS’ compliance with the CAA, or the impact on PNM’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

Four Corners

On August 6, 2012, EPA issued its final BART determination for Four Corners. The rule included two compliance alternatives. On December 30, 2013, APS notified EPA that the Four Corners participants selected the alternative that required APS 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. PNM owns a 13% interest in Units 4 and 5, but had no ownership interest in Units 1, 2, and 3, which were shutdown by APS on December 30, 2013. 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.

APS, on behalf of the Four Corners participants, negotiated amendments to an existing facility lease with the Navajo Nation, which extends the Four Corners leasehold interest from 2016 to 2041. The Navajo Nation approved these amendments in March 2011. The effectiveness of the amendments also requires the approval of the DOI, as does a related federal rights-of-way grant, which the Four Corners participants are pursuing. A federal environmental review is underway as part of the DOI review process. In March 2014, APS received a draft of the EIS in connection with the DOI review process. The deadline for comments on the draft EIS, which originally were due by the May 27, 2014, was extended to June 27, 2014. On June 19, 2014, PNM submitted comments on the draft EIS as owner and operator of two electric transmission lines that are part of the connected action for the EIS. In addition, APS will require a PSD permit from EPA to install SCR control technology at Four Corners. PNM cannot predict whether these federal approvals will be granted, and if so on a timely basis, or whether any conditions that may be attached to them will be acceptable to the Four Corners participants.

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 $80.3 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 is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.

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. Oral argument was presented before the Tenth Circuit on January 23, 2014. On July 23, 2014, the Tenth Circuit issued a unanimous decision affirming EPA’s action and denying WEG’s petition for review. PNM is unable to predict whether WEG will file a petition for rehearing or otherwise appeal the decision.

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. Oral argument was heard before the Tenth Circuit on March 20, 2014. PNM is continuing to evaluate the impacts of these matters, but is unable to predict their ultimate outcomes.

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. On May 13, 2014, EPA released the draft data requirements rule for the 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS, which directs state and tribal air agencies to characterize current air quality in areas with large SO₂ sources to identify maximum 1-hour SO₂ concentrations. The proposed rule also describes the process and timetable by which air regulatory agencies would characterize air quality around large SO₂ sources through ambient monitoring or modeling. 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 November 8, 2013, PNM received an amendment to its air permit for SJGS, which would be required for the installation of either SCRs or SNCRs described above. In the revised permit, PNM agreed to reduce SO₂ emissions to 0.1 pound per MMBTU and to install equipment modifications for the purpose of reducing fugitive emissions, including NOx, SO₂, and particulate matter. These reductions will help SJGS meet the NAAQS. It is anticipated that the equipment modifications 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 believes the equipment modifications discussed above will assist the plant in complying with the particulate matter NAAQS.

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 has stated it intends to propose a new standard. Although EPA has not announced a timeline for its review, it may release new proposed standards in the second half 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 at any of its affected facilities 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 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 $0.7 million, to a total of $6.6 million. On March 23, 2014, the court entered a stipulated order reflecting an agreement reached by the parties. In accordance with the stipulated order, PNM will repeat the mercury study required under the Consent Decree using sorbent traps instead of the monitoring system used in the initial study. The results of the mercury study will establish the activated carbon injection rate that maximizes mercury removal at SJGS, as required under the Consent Decree. PNM cannot predict the ultimate 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. On April 2, 2012, the Four Corners participants filed motions to dismiss. 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 owners 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.

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. The Court granted SJCC’s motion to sever its claims from the lawsuit and transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, where this matter is now proceeding. 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. Although an agreement was reached resolving claims related 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.

Cooling Water Intake Structures

EPA issued its final cooling water intake structures rule on May 19, 2014, which establishes 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 final rule allows multiple compliance options and considerations for site specific conditions and the permit writer is granted a significant amount of discretion in determining permit requirements, schedules, and conditions. To minimize impingement mortality, the rule provides operators of facilities, such as SJGS and Four Corners, seven options for meeting “best technology available” standards for reducing impingement. To minimize entrainment mortality, the permitting authority must establish the “best technology available” for entrainment on a site-specific basis, taking into consideration an array of factors, including social costs and benefits. Affected sources must submit source water baseline characterization data to the permitting authority to assist in the determination. Compliance deadlines under the rule are tied to permit renewal and will be subject to a schedule of compliance established by the permitting authority. PNM is performing analyses to determine the potential costs of compliance with the rule. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or a range of the potential costs of compliance. APS is currently in discussions with EPA Region 9, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit writer for Four Corners, to determine the scope of the impingement and entrainment requirements, which will, in turn, determine APS’s costs to comply with the rule. APS has indicated that it does not expect such costs to be material.

Effluent Limitation Guidelines

On June 7, 2013, EPA published proposed revised wastewater effluent limitation guidelines establishing technology-based wastewater discharge limitations for fossil fuel-fired 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 waste operations. The preferred alternatives differ with respect to the scope of requirements that would be applicable to existing discharges of pollutants found in wastestreams generated at existing power plants. All four alternatives would establish a “zero discharge” effluent limit for all pollutants in fly ash transport water. However, requirements governing bottom ash transport water differ depending on which alternative EPA ultimately chooses and could range from effluent limits based on Best Available Technology Economically Achievable to “zero discharge” effluent limits. Depending on which alternative EPA finalizes, Four Corners may be required to change equipment and operating practices affecting boilers and ash handling systems, as well as change its waste disposal techniques. PNM has reviewed the proposed rule and continues to assess the potential impact to SJGS and Reeves Station, the only PNM-operated power plants that would be covered by the proposed rule. On April 9, 2014, several environmental groups agreed to allow EPA until September 30, 2015 to issue final effluent limits. Under the agreement, EPA will not seek any further extensions and will follow through on a separate agreement to issue a final rule on coal ash waste disposal by December 19, 2014. If EPA misses the December 19, 2014 deadline to issue a coal ash rule, then the agreement allows the environmental groups to require the EPA to issue the final effluent limits earlier. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or a range of the potential costs of compliance.

Santa Fe Generating Station

PNM and the NMED are parties to agreements under which PNM installed a remediation system to treat water from a City of Santa Fe municipal supply well, an extraction well, and monitoring wells to address gasoline contamination in the groundwater at the site of the former Santa Fe Generating Station and service center. PNM believes the observed groundwater contamination originated from off-site sources, but agreed to operate the remediation facilities until the groundwater meets applicable federal and state standards or until the NMED determines that additional remediation is not required, whichever is earlier. The City of Santa Fe has indicated that since the City no longer needs the water from the well, the City would prefer to discontinue its operation and maintain it only as a backup water source. However, for PNM’s groundwater remediation system to operate, the water well must be in service. Currently, PNM is not able to assess the duration of this project or estimate the impact on its obligations if the City of Santa Fe ceases to operate the water well.

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 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, which produced similar results. PNM voluntarily agreed to conduct similar sampling activities on the site beginning in April 2014, as well as more specific “fingerprint” analysis, which may help identify potential off-site sources. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and does not believe the former generating station is the source of the nitrates or the increased levels of free-phase hydrocarbons, but no conclusive determinations have been made.

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 and 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. On January 29, 2014, EPA entered into a consent decree directing EPA to publish its final action regarding whether or not to pursue the proposed non-hazardous waste option for CCBs by December 19, 2014.

PNM advocates for the non-hazardous regulation of CCBs. 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. 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 Units 4 and 5 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, 2014 and December 31, 2013, prepayments for coal, which are included in other current assets, amounted to $21.6 million and $12.3 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. PNM and the other owners of SJGS are evaluating alternatives for the supply of coal after the expiration of the current coal sales agreement.

APS purchases all of Four Corners’ coal requirements from a supplier that was also a subsidiary of BHP and had a long-term lease of coal reserves with the Navajo Nation. That contract was to expire on July 6, 2016 with pricing determined using an escalating base-price. On December 30, 2013, ownership of the mine was transferred to an entity owned by the Navajo Nation and a new coal supply contract for Four Corners, expiring in 2031, was entered into with that entity. The BHP subsidiary is to be retained as the mine manager and operator until December 2016. Coal costs are anticipated to increase approximately 21% for the first full year of the new contract and will further increase over the contract term. PNM anticipates that its share of the increased costs will be recovered through its FPPAC.

In 2013, 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. This estimate reflects that, with the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 described above, the mine providing coal to SJGS will continue to operate through 2053, the anticipated life of SJGS. The 2013 estimate for decommissioning the Four Corners mine reflects the operation of the mine through 2031, the term of the new coal supply agreement. Based on the 2013 estimates, remaining payments for mine reclamation, in future dollars, are estimated to be $54.6 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $93.3 million for the underground mine at SJGS as of June 30, 2014. At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, liabilities, in current dollars, of $23.3 million and $23.8 million for surface mine reclamation and $8.2 million and $7.8 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. In conjunction with the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 to comply with the BART requirements of the CAA discussed under The Clean Air Act – Regional Haze – SJGS above, an updated coal mine reclamation study was requested by the SJGS participants. As discussed under Coal Combustion Byproducts Waste Disposal above, SJGS currently disposes of CCBs from the plant in the surface mine pits adjacent to the plant. The updated coal mine reclamation study indicates reclamation costs have increased, including significant increases due to the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3, although the timing of payments will be delayed. The shutdown of Units 2 and 3 would reduce the amount of CCBs generated over the remaining life of SJGS, which could result in a significant increase in the amount of fill dirt required to remediate the underground mine area thereby increasing the overall reclamation costs. It has not been decided how costs would be divided among the owners of SJGS. Regulatory determinations made by the NMPRC may also affect the impact on PNM. The reclamation amounts discussed above reflect PNM’s estimates of its share of the revised costs. PNM is currently unable to determine the outcome of these matters or the range of possible impacts.

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. At that time, MSHA conducted a root cause analysis inspection of the incident area, but has not yet issued its report. SJCC has completed inspection of the mine equipment and reported no significant damage. SJCC removed the equipment from the impacted mine panel and reassembled it at a new panel face. On May 4, 2012, SJCC received approval from MSHA and resumed longwall mining operations.

The costs of the mine recovery flowed through the cost-reimbursable component of the coal supply agreement. PNM included the portion of such costs allocable to its customers subject to New Mexico regulation in its FPPAC. PNM’s filings with the NMPRC reflected an estimate that this incident increased coal costs and the deferral of cost recovery under the FPPAC by between $17.4 million and $21.6 million. SJCC submitted an insurance claim regarding the costs it incurred due to the mine fire and informed PNM that it settled with its insurance carrier. PNM’s portion of the insurance recovery is $18.7 million. PNM has credited its FPPAC balancing account for the insurance proceeds allocable to PNM’s New Mexico jurisdictional customers. See Note 12.

Continuous Highwall Mining Royalty Rate

In August 2013, the DOI Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) issued a proposed rulemaking that would retroactively apply the surface mining royalty rate of 12.5% to continuous highwall mining (“CHM”). Comments regarding the rulemaking were due on October 11, 2013, and PNM submitted comments in opposition to the proposed rule. There is no legal deadline for adoption of the final rule.

SJCC utilized the CHM technique from 2000 to 2003 and, with the approval of the Farmington, New Mexico Field Office of BLM to reclassify the final highwall as underground reserves, applied the 8.0% underground mining royalty rate to coal mined using CHM and sold to SJGS. In March 2001, SJCC learned that the DOI Minerals Management Service (“MMS”) disagreed with the application of the underground royalty rate to CHM. In August 2006, SJCC and MMS entered into a settlement agreement tolling the statute of limitations on any administrative action to recover unpaid royalties until BLM issued a final, non-appealable determination as to the proper rate for CHM-mined coal. The proposed BLM rulemaking has the potential to terminate the tolling provision of the settlement agreement, and underpaid royalties of approximately $5 million for SJGS would become due if the proposed BLM rule is adopted as proposed. PNM’s share of any amount that is ultimately paid would be approximately 46.3%, none of which would be passed through PNM’s FPPAC. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

SJCC Arbitration

The coal supply agreement for SJGS provides that the participants in SJGS have the right to audit the costs billed by SJCC. An independent accounting firm has been engaged to perform audits of the costs billed under the provisions of the contract. The audit for the period from 2006 through 2009 resulted in disagreements between the SJGS participants and SJCC. As provided in the contract, certain issues were submitted to a panel for binding arbitration. The issues were: 1) whether the SJGS participants owed SJCC unbilled mining costs of $5.2 million or whether SJCC owed the SJGS participants overbilled mining costs of $1.1 million, and 2) whether SJCC billed the SJGS participants $13.9 million as mining costs that SJCC should have considered to be capital costs, which were not billable under the mining contract. PNM’s share of amounts subject to the arbitration are approximately 46.3%. A hearing before the arbitration panel on the remaining issues was held in May 2014. The arbitration panel found in favor of SJCC on both issues. Of PNM’s share of the costs, approximately 33% of the first issue was passed through PNM’s FPPAC and the rest impacted earnings in the three months ended June 30, 2014. The amounts related to the second issue were recorded when billed in prior periods and had no impact in 2014.

Four Corners Severance Tax Assessment

On May 23, 2013, the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (“NMTRD”) issued a notice of assessment for coal severance surtax, penalty, and interest totaling approximately $30 million related to coal supplied under the coal supply agreement for Four Corners. PNM’s share of any amounts paid related to this assessment would be approximately 8%, all of which would be passed through PNM’s FPPAC. For procedural reasons, on behalf of the Four Corners co-owners, including PNM, the coal supplier made a partial payment of the assessment and immediately filed a refund claim with respect to that partial payment in August 2013. On December 19, 2013, the coal supplier and APS, on its own behalf and as operating agent for Four Corners, filed a complaint in the New Mexico District Court contesting both the validity of the assessment and the refund claim denial. PNM believes the assessment and the refund claim denial are without merit, but cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

PVNGS Liability and Insurance Matters

Public 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 $13.6 billion per occurrence. Commercial insurance carriers provide $375 million and $13.2 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 retrospective premium assessment per incident for all three units is $38.9 million, with a maximum annual payment limitation of $5.7 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, 2014, a sublimit of $2.25 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 premium assessments of $4.8 million for each retrospective premium 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 is not 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 long-term 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 Nation’s water rights would be settled and finally determined by entry by the court of two proposed adjudication decrees. The court issued an order in August 2013 finding that no evidentiary hearing was warranted in the Navajo Nation proceeding, and on November 1, 2013 issued a Partial Final Judgment and Decree of the Water Rights of the Navajo Nation approving the proposed settlement with the Navajo Nation. Several parties filed a joint motion for a new trial, which was denied by the court. A number of parties subsequently appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. PNM has entered its appearance in the appellate case. No hearing dates or deadlines have been set at this time.

PNM is participating in this proceeding since 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. PNM 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.

Rights-of-Way Matter

On January 28, 2014, the County Commission of Bernalillo County, New Mexico passed an ordinance requiring utilities to enter into a use agreement and pay a yet to be determined fee as a condition to installing, maintaining, and operating facilities on county rights-of-way. The fee is purported to compensate the county for costs of administering, maintaining, and capital improvements to the rights-of-way. On February 27, 2014, PNM and other utilities filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico challenging the validity of the ordinance. In June 2014, the utilities and Bernalillo County reached an agreement whereby the County would not take any enforcement action against the utilities pursuant to the ordinance during the pendency of the litigation, but not including any period for appeal of a judgment, or upon 30 days written notice by either the County or the utilities of their intention to terminate the agreement. If the challenge to the ordinance is unsuccessful, PNM believes any fees paid pursuant to the ordinance would be considered franchise fees and would be recoverable from customers. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or its impact on PNM’s operations.

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 and that rates for sales to PNM were excessive. PNM also intervened in a proceeding brought by other customers raising similar arguments relating to SPS’ fuel cost adjustment clause practices and issues relating to demand cost allocation (the “Golden Spread Proceeding”). In addition, PNM intervened in a proceeding filed by SPS to revise its rates for sales to PNM (“SPS 2006 Rate Proceeding”). In 2008, FERC issued its order in the Golden Spread Proceeding affirming an ALJ decision 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 that had been ordered by the ALJ. FERC also reversed the decision of the ALJ, which had been favorable to PNM, on the demand cost allocation issues. PNM and SPS filed petitions for rehearing and clarification of the scope of the remedies that were ordered and seeking reversal of various rulings in the order. On August 15, 2013, FERC issued separate orders in the Golden Spread Proceeding and in the SPS 2006 Rate Proceeding. The order in the Golden Spread Proceeding determined that PNM was not entitled to refunds for SPS’ fuel cost adjustment clause practices. That order and the order in the SPS 2006 Rate Proceeding decided the demand cost allocation issues using the method that PNM had advocated. PNM, SPS, and other customers of SPS have filed requests for rehearing of these orders and they are pending further action by FERC. 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 for the District of New Mexico. 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, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior Board of Indian Appeals. Following briefing on the merits, on August 20, 2013, that board issued a decision upholding the Regional Director’s decision that the allottees had failed to perfect their appeals, and dismissed the allottees’ appeals, without prejudice. The allottees have not refiled their appeals. Although this matter was dismissed without prejudice, PNM considers the matter concluded. However, PNM continues to monitor this matter in order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way.

In a separate matter, in September 2012, 43 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. On January 6, 2014, PNM received notice that the BIA, Navajo Region, requested a review of an appraisal report on 58 allotment parcels. After review, the BIA concluded it would continue to rely on the values of the original appraisal. On March 27, 2014, while this matter was stayed, the allottees filed a motion to dismiss their appeal with prejudice. On April 2, 2014, the allotees’ appeal was dismissed with prejudice concluding this matter. Subsequent to the dismissal, PNM received a letter from counsel on behalf of what appears to be a subset of the 43 landowner allottees involved in the appeal, notifying PNM that the specified allottees were revoking their consents for renewal of right of way on six specific allotments. PNM is in the process of investigating the validity of this notice of revocation and its potential impact in light of the BIA’s position and the recent dismissal with prejudice of the appeal, and is therefore unable at this time to predict the likely outcome of this matter.