Regulatory and Rate Matters

The Company is involved in various regulatory matters, some of which contain contingencies that are subject to the same uncertainties as those described in Note 11. Additional information concerning regulatory and rate matters is contained in Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2016 Annual Reports on Form 10-K.

PNM

New Mexico General Rate Cases

New Mexico 2015 General Rate Case (“NM 2015 Rate Case”)

On August 27, 2015, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for a general increase in retail electric rates. The application proposed a revenue increase of $123.5 million, including base non-fuel revenues of $121.7 million. PNM’s application was based on a future test year (“FTY”) period beginning October 1, 2015 and proposed a ROE of 10.5%. The primary drivers of PNM’s identified revenue deficiency were the cost of infrastructure investments, including depreciation expense based on an updated depreciation study, and a decline in energy sales as a result of PNM’s successful energy efficiency programs and economic factors. The application included several proposed changes in rate design to establish fair and equitable pricing across rate classes and to better align cost recovery with cost causation. Specific rate design proposals included higher customer and demand charges, a revenue decoupling pilot program applicable to residential and small commercial customers, a re-allocation of revenue among PNM’s customer classes, a new economic development rate, and continuation of PNM’s renewable energy rider. PNM requested that the proposed new rates become effective beginning in July 2016. On March 2, 2016, the NMPRC required PNM to file supplemental testimony regarding the treatment of renewable energy in PNM’s FPPAC. See Renewable Portfolio Standard below. A public hearing on the proposed new rates was held in April 2016. Subsequent to this hearing, the NMPRC ordered PNM to file additional testimony regarding PNM’s interests in PVNGS, including the 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2 that PNM repurchased in January 2016, pursuant to the terms of the initial sales-leaseback transactions (Note 6). A subsequent public hearing was held in June 2016. After the June hearing, PNM and other parties were ordered to file supplemental briefs and to provide final recommended revenue requirements that incorporated fuel savings that PNM implemented effective January 1, 2016 from PNM’s SJGS coal supply agreement (“CSA”). PNM’s filing indicated that recovery for fuel related costs would be reduced by approximately $42.9 million reflecting the current CSA (Note 11), which also reduced the request for base non-fuel related revenues by $0.2 million to $121.5 million.

On August 4, 2016, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued a recommended decision (“RD”). The RD proposed an increase in non-fuel revenues of $41.3 million compared to the $121.5 million increase requested by PNM. Major components of the difference in the increase in non-fuel revenues proposed in the RD, included:


•	A ROE of 9.575% compared to the 10.5% requested by PNM

•

Disallowing recovery of the entire $163.3 million purchase price for the January 15, 2016 purchases of the assets underlying three leases of portions of PVNGS Unit 2 (Note 6); the RD proposed that power from the previously leased assets, aggregating 64.1 MW of capacity, be dedicated to serving New Mexico retail customers with those customers being charged for the costs of fuel and operating and maintenance expenses (other than property taxes, which were $0.8 million per year at that time), but the customers would not bear any capital or depreciation costs other than those related to improvements made after the date of the original leases

•

Disallowing recovery from retail customers of the rent expense, which aggregates $18.1 million per year, under the four leases of capacity in PVNGS Unit 1 that were extended for eight years beginning January 15, 2015 and the one lease of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 that was extended for eight years beginning January 15, 2016 (Note 6) and related property taxes, which were $1.5 million per year at that time; the RD proposed that power from the leased assets, aggregating 114.6 MW of capacity, be dedicated to serving New Mexico retail customers with those customers being charged for the costs of fuel and operating and maintenance expense, except that customers would not bear rental costs or property taxes


•	Disallowing recovery of the costs of converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT, which is required by the NSR permit for SJGS, (Note 11); PNM’s share of the costs of installing the BDT equipment was $52.3 million of which $40.0 million was included in rate base in PNM’s rate request


•	Disallowing recovery of $4.5 million of amounts recorded as regulatory assets and deferred charges

The RD recommended that the NMPRC find PNM was imprudent in the actions taken to purchase the previously leased 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, extending the leases for 114.6 MW of capacity of PVNGS Units 1 and 2, and installing the BDT equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4. The RD also proposed that all fuel costs be removed from base rates and be recovered through the FPPAC. The RD would credit retail customers with 100% of the New Mexico jurisdictional portion of revenues from refined coal (a third-party pre-treatment process) at SJGS. In addition, the RD would remove recovery of the costs of power obtained from New Mexico Wind from the FPPAC and include recovery of those costs through PNM’s renewable energy rider discussed below. The RD recommended continuation of the renewable energy rider and certain aspects of PNM’s proposals regarding rate design, but would not approve certain other rate design proposals or PNM’s request for a revenue decoupling pilot program. The RD proposed approving PNM’s proposals for revised depreciation rates (with one exception), the inclusion of CWIP in rate base, and ratemaking treatment of the prepaid pension asset. The RD did not preclude PNM from supporting the prudence of the PVNGS purchases and lease renewals in its next general rate case and seeking recovery of those costs. PNM disagreed with many of the key conclusions reached by the Hearing Examiner in the RD and filed exceptions to defend its prudent utility investments. Other parties also filed exceptions to the RD.

The NMPRC issued an order on September 28, 2016 that authorized PNM to implement an increase in non-fuel rates of $61.2 million, effective for bills sent to customers after September 30, 2016. The order generally approved the RD, but with certain significant modifications. The modifications to the RD included:


•	Inclusion of the January 2016 purchase of the assets underlying three leases of capacity, aggregating 64.1 MW, of PVNGS Unit 2 at an initial rate base value of $83.7 million; and disallowance of the recovery of the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW was being leased by PNM, which aggregated $43.8 million when the order was issued


•	Full recovery of the rent expense and property taxes associated with the extended leases for capacity, aggregating 114.6 MW, in Palo Verde Units 1 and 2


•	Disallowance of the recovery of any future contributions for PVNGS decommissioning costs related to the 64.1 MW of capacity purchased in January 2016 and the 114.6 MW of capacity under the extended leases


•	Recovery of assumed operating and maintenance expense savings of $0.3 million annually related to BDT

On September 30, 2016, PNM filed a Notice of Appeal with the NM Supreme Court regarding the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case. Subsequently, NEE, NMIEC, and ABCWUA filed notices of cross-appeal. On October 26, 2016, PNM filed a statement of issues related to its appeal with the NM Supreme Court, which states PNM is appealing the NMPRC’s determination that PNM was imprudent in the actions taken to purchase the previously leased 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, extending the leases for 114.6 MW of capacity of PVNGS Units 1 and 2, and installing the BDT equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4. Specifically, PNM’s statement indicated it is appealing the following elements of the NMPRC’s order:


•	Disallowance of recovery of the full purchase price, representing fair market value, of the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 purchased in January 2016


•	Disallowance of the recovery of the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW of capacity was leased by PNM


•	Disallowance of recovery of future contributions for PVNGS decommissioning attributable to the 64.1 MW of purchased capacity and the 114.6 MW of capacity under the extended leases


•	Disallowance of recovery of the costs of converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT

The issues that are being appealed by the various cross-appellants include:


•	The NMPRC allowing PNM to recover the costs of the lease extensions for the 114.6 MW of PVNGS Units 1 and 2 and any of the purchase price for the 64.1 MW in PVNGS Unit 2


•	The NMPRC allowing PNM to recover the costs incurred under the new coal supply contract for Four Corners


•	The revised method to collect PNM’s fuel and purchased power costs under the FPPAC


•	The final rate design


•	The NMPRC allowing PNM to include the prepaid pension asset in rate base

NEE subsequently filed a motion for a partial stay of the order at the NM Supreme Court. This motion was denied. The NM Supreme Court stated that the court’s intent was to request that PNM reimburse ratepayers for any amount overcharged should the cross-appellants prevail on the merits. Otherwise, the court has taken no action with respect to the appeals. On February 17, 2017, PNM filed its Brief in Chief, and pursuant to the court’s rules, the briefing schedule is anticipated to be completed by June 28, 2017. Although appeals of regulatory actions of the NMPRC have a priority at the NM Supreme Court under New Mexico law, there is no required time frame for the court to act on the appeals.

GAAP requires that a loss is to be recognized when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. When there is a range of the amount of the probable loss, the minimum amount of the range is to be accrued unless an amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. PNM evaluated the accounting consequences of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case and the likelihood of being successful on the issues it is appealing in the NM Supreme Court as required under GAAP. The evaluation indicates it is reasonably possible that PNM will be successful on the issues it is appealing. If the NM Supreme Court rules in PNM’s favor on some or all of the issues, those issues would be remanded back to the NMPRC for further action. PNM estimates that it will take a minimum of 15 months, from the date PNM filed its appeal, for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues. During such time, the rates specified in the order will remain in effect. PNM has concluded that a range of probable loss resulted from the NMPRC order in the NM 2015 Rate Case; that the minimum amount of loss is 15 months of capital cost recovery that the order disallowed for its investments in the PVNGS Unit 2 purchases, PVNGS Unit 2 capitalized improvements, and BDT; and that no amount within the range of possible loss is a better estimate than any other amount. Accordingly, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $6.8 million in September 2016 for the capital costs that will not be covered during that 15 month appeal period. In addition, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance for $4.5 million of costs recorded as regulatory assets and deferred charges (which the order disallowed and which PNM did not challenge in its appeal) since PNM can no longer assert that those assets are probable of being recovered through the ratemaking process. Additional losses will be recorded if the currently estimated 15 month time frame for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues is extended. The NMPRC’s order approved PNM’s request to record a regulatory asset to recover a 2014 impairment of PNM’s New Mexico net operating loss carryforward resulting from an extension of the income tax provision for fifty percent bonus depreciation. The impact, net of federal income taxes, amounts to $2.1 million, which was reflected as a reduction of income tax expense in September 2016.

PNM continues to believe that the disallowed investments, which are the subject of PNM’s appeal, were prudently incurred and that PNM is entitled to full recovery of those investments through the ratemaking process. Although PNM believes it is reasonably possible that its appeals will be successful, it cannot predict what decision the NM Supreme Court will reach or what further actions the NMPRC will take on any issues remanded to it by the court. If PNM’s appeal is unsuccessful, PNM would record further pre-tax losses related to the capitalized costs for any unsuccessful issues. The impacts of not recovering future contributions for decommissioning would be recorded in future periods. The amounts of any such losses to be recorded would depend on the ultimate outcome of the appeal and NMPRC process, as well as the actual amounts reflected on PNM books at the time of the resolution. However, based on the book values recorded by PNM as of March 31, 2017, such losses could include:


•	The remaining costs to acquire the assets previously leased under three leases aggregating 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2 capacity in excess of the recovery permitted under the NMPRC’s order; the net book value of such excess amount was $76.9 million, after considering the loss recorded in 2016


•	The undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 purchased by PNM in January 2016 was being leased by PNM; the net book value of these improvements was $39.9 million, after considering the loss recorded in 2016


•	The remaining costs to convert SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT; the net book value of these assets was $50.0 million, after considering the loss recorded in 2016

Also, PNM has evaluated the accounting consequences of the issues that are being appealed by the cross-appellants. Although PNM does not believe the issues raised in the cross-appeals have substantial merit, PNM is unable to predict what decision the NM Supreme Court will reach. PNM does not believe that the likelihood of the cross-appeals being successful is probable. However, if the Supreme Court were to overturn all of the issues subject to the cross-appeals and, upon remand, the NMPRC did not provide any recovery of those items, PNM would write-off all of the costs to acquire the assets previously leased under three leases aggregating 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2 capacity, totaling $154.9 million (which amount includes $76.9 million that is the subject of PNM’s appeal discussed above) at March 31, 2017, after considering the loss recorded in 2016. The impacts of not recovering costs for the lease extensions, new coal supply contract for Four Corners, and prepaid pension asset in rate base would be recognized in future periods reflecting that rates charged to customers would not recover those costs as they are incurred. The outcomes of the cross-appeals regarding the FPPAC and rate design should not have financial impact to PNM.

PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

New Mexico 2016 General Rate Case (“NM 2016 Rate Case”)

On December 7, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for a general increase in retail electric rates. PNM did not include any of the costs disallowed in the NM 2015 Rate Case that are at issue in its pending appeal to the NM Supreme Court. Key aspects of PNM’s request are:


•	An increase in base non-fuel revenues of $99.2 million


•	Based on a FTY beginning January 1, 2018 (the NMPRC’s rules specify that a FTY is a 12 month period beginning up to 13 months after the filing of a rate case application)


•	ROE of 10.125%


•	Drivers of revenue deficiency


◦	Implementation of the modifications in PNM’s resource portfolio, which were previously approved by the NMPRC as part of the SJGS regional haze compliance plan (Note 11)


◦	Infrastructure investments, including environmental upgrades at Four Corners


◦	Declines in forecasted energy sales due to successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors


◦	Updates in the FERC/retail jurisdictional allocations


•	Proposed changes to rate design to establish fair and equitable pricing across rate classes and to better align cost recovery with cost causation


◦	Increased customer and demand charges


◦	A “lost contribution to fixed cost” mechanism applicable to residential and small commercial customers to address the regulatory disincentive associated with PNM’s energy efficiency programs

The NMPRC scheduled a public hearing to begin on June 5, 2017, ordered that a settlement conference should be held, and that any resulting stipulation should be filed by March 27, 2017. Settlement discussions have been held, but no agreements were reached by March 27, 2017. PNM and several intervenors filed an unopposed motion with the NMPRC to extend by one month the procedural schedule, including the date for filing a stipulation. On April 12, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order modifying the procedural schedule to allow for additional settlement discussion. Under the revised schedule, any settlement stipulation was to be filed by April 27, 2017 and the public hearing would begin on July 10, 2017. On April 27, 2017, PNM and several intervenors filed a motion with the NMPRC to extend the deadline for filing a stipulation to May 5, 2017. The motion is subject to approval by the Hearing Examiner. Upon filing, a settlement would require the approval of the NMPRC in order to take effect. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Investigation/Rulemaking Concerning NMPRC Ratemaking Policies

On March 22, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order opening an investigation and rulemaking to simplify and increase “the transparency of NMPRC rate cases by reducing the number of issues litigated in rate cases,” and provide a “more level playing field among intervenors and Staff on the one hand, and the utilities on the other.” The order posed the following questions: whether a standardized method (“DCF”) should be established for determining ROE; should the ROE be subject to reward or penalty based on utilities meeting or failing to meet certain metrics, which could include customer complaints, outages, peak demand reductions, and RPS and energy efficiency compliance; whether recovery of utility rate case expenses should be limited to 50% unless the case is settled; whether intervenors should be allowed to recover their expenses if the NMPRC accepts their position; whether parties should have access to software used by utilities to support their positions; and how regulatory assets should be authorized and recovered. A procedural schedule has been established that includes initial comments on July 10, 2017 and a public workshop on August 9, 2017. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding.

Renewable Portfolio Standard

The REA establishes a mandatory RPS requiring a utility to acquire a renewable energy portfolio equal to 10% of retail electric sales by 2011, 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. PNM files annual renewable energy procurement plans for approval by the NMPRC. The NMPRC requires renewable energy portfolios to be “fully diversified.” The current diversity requirements, which are subject to the limitation of the RCT, are minimums of 30% wind, 20% solar, 3% distributed generation, and 5% other.

The REA provides for streamlined proceedings for approval of utilities’ renewable energy procurement plans, assures that utilities recover costs incurred consistent with approved procurement plans, and requires the NMPRC to establish a RCT for the procurement of renewable resources to prevent excessive costs being added to rates. Currently, the RCT is set at 3% of customers’ annual electric charges. PNM makes renewable procurements consistent with the NMPRC approved plans. PNM recovers certain renewable procurement costs from customers through a rate rider. See Renewable Energy Rider below.

Included in PNM’s approved procurement plans are the following renewable energy resources:

•

107 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities, including 40 MW constructed in 2015 that were identified as a cost-effective resource in PNM’s application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 (Note 11) and are being recovered in the base rates provided in the NM 2015 Rate Case discussed above rather than through PNM’s renewable energy rider; and an additional procurement of 1.5 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities to supply the energy sold under PNM’s voluntary renewable energy tariff


•	A PPA through 2027 for the output of New Mexico Wind, having an aggregate capacity of 204 MW and a PPA through 2035 for the output of Red Mesa Wind, an existing wind generator having an aggregate capacity of 102 MW


•	A PPA for the output of the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility; the geothermal facility began providing power to PNM in January 2014; the current capacity of the facility is 4 MW


•	Solar distributed generation, aggregating 66.8 MW at March 31, 2017, owned by customers or third parties from whom PNM purchases any net excess output and RECs


•	Solar and wind RECs as needed to meet the RPS requirements

PNM filed its 2016 renewable energy procurement plan on June 1, 2015. The plan met RPS and diversity requirements within the RCT in 2016 and 2017 using existing resources and did not propose any significant new procurements. The NMPRC approved the plan in November 2015, and, after granting a rehearing motion to consider issues regarding the rate treatment of certain customers eligible for a cap on, or an exemption from, RPS procurement, the NMPRC again approved the plan in an order issued on February 3, 2016. The NMPRC deferred issues related to capped and exempt customers to PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and to a new case, which the NMPRC subsequently initiated through issuance of an order to show cause. The NM 2015 Rate Case and show cause proceeding were to examine whether PNM miscalculated the FPPAC factor and base fuel costs in its treatment of renewable energy costs and application of the renewable procurement cost caps and exemptions. The show cause proceeding was stayed pending the outcome of the NM 2015 Rate Case. The September 28, 2016 order in the NM 2015 Rate Case directed that the cost of New Mexico Wind be recovered through PNM’s renewable rider, rather than the FPPAC, and ordered certain other modifications regarding the accounting for renewable energy in PNM’s FPPAC. These modifications do not affect the amount of fuel and purchased power or renewable costs that PNM will collect. No action has been taken in the show cause proceeding and PNM cannot predict its outcome.

PNM filed its 2017 renewable energy procurement plan on June 1, 2016. The plan met RPS and diversity requirements for 2017 and 2018 using existing resources and PNM did not propose any significant new procurements. PNM projected that its plan would slightly exceed the RCT in 2017 and would be within the RCT in 2018. PNM requested a variance from the RCT in 2017 to the extent the NMPRC determined a variance was necessary. A public hearing was held on September 26, 2016. On October 21, 2016, the Hearing Examiner issued a Recommended Decision recommending that the plan be approved as filed and also found that a variance from the RCT was not required. The NMPRC approved the Recommended Decision on November 23, 2016.

Renewable Energy Rider

The NMPRC has authorized PNM to recover certain renewable procurement costs through a rate rider billed on a per KWh basis. In PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case, the NMPRC authorized continuation of the renewable rider. PNM recorded revenues from the rider of $11.0 million and $8.4 million in the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016.

In its 2016 renewable energy procurement plan case, PNM proposed to collect $42.4 million in 2016. The 2016 rider adjustment was approved as part of the order issued February 3, 2016 approving the 2016 renewable energy plan. In its 2017 renewable energy procurement plan, PNM proposed to collect $50.0 million through the rider in 2017. The increase, as compared with the amount the NMPRC approved for recovery through the rider in 2016, was due to recovering the costs of energy from New Mexico Wind through the rider, rather than through the FPPAC in compliance with the NMPRC’s order in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case. The 2017 rider adjustment was approved in the November 23, 2016 order that approved the 2017 renewable energy plan. On February 28, 2017, PNM filed a reconciliation of 2017 revenue requirement and proposed a revision to the rider that would recover $42.7 million during 2017.

Under the renewable rider, if PNM’s earned rate of return on jurisdictional equity in a calendar year, adjusted for weather and other items not representative of normal operations, exceeds the NMPRC-approved rate by 0.5%, PNM is required to refund the excess to customers during May through December of the following year. PNM’s annual compliance filings with the NMPRC show that its rate of return on jurisdictional equity did not exceed the limitation through 2016.

Energy Efficiency and Load Management

Program Costs and Incentives

Public utilities are required by the Efficient Use of Energy Act to achieve specified levels of energy savings and to obtain NMPRC approval to implement energy efficiency and load management programs. The act sets an annual program budget equal to 3% of an electric utility’s annual revenue. PNM’s costs to implement approved programs are recovered through a rate rider.

On April 15, 2016, PNM filed an application for energy efficiency and load management programs to be offered in 2017. The proposed program portfolio consisted of ten programs with a total budget of $28.0 million. The application also sought approval of an incentive of $2.4 million based on targeted savings of 75 GWh. The actual incentive would be based on actual savings achieved. On January 11, 2017, the NMPRC approved an unopposed stipulation that established a method to ensure that funding of PNM’s energy efficiency program is equal to 3% of retail revenues, with an estimated 2017 energy efficiency funding level of $26.0 million, and approved a sliding scale profit incentive with a base level of 7.1% of program costs, equal to $1.8 million, if PNM achieves a minimum proscribed level of energy savings, increasing to a maximum of 9.0% depending on actual energy savings achieved above the minimum.

On April 14, 2017, PNM filed an application for energy efficiency and load management programs to be offered in 2018. The proposed program portfolio consists of a continuation of the ten programs approved in the 2016 application with a total budget of $25.1 million. The application also seeks approval of a sliding scale incentive with a base incentive of $1.9 million if PNM is able to achieve saving of 53 GWh in 2018. PNM projects it would earn an incentive of $2.1 million based on targeted savings of 70 GWh. The actual incentive would be based on actual savings achieved. The application also requests a variance if the NMPRC approves a pending rulemaking that would reduce the frequency of energy efficiency applications to every other year so that PNM would not have to file its next energy efficiency application until 2019. PNM proposes to continue the same ten programs and a similar incentive mechanism in 2019, with a proposed budget of $28.2 million and a base level incentive of $2.1 million. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding.

Energy Efficiency Rulemaking

In July 2012, the NMPRC opened an energy efficiency rulemaking docket to potentially address decoupling and incentives. Workshops to develop a proposed rule have been held, but no order proposing a rule has been issued. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

On January 25, 2017, the NMPRC opened another energy efficiency rulemaking docket to consider whether applications for approval of energy efficiency and load management programs should be filed every two years rather than annually. Written comments were filed in the rulemaking docket, and a public comment hearing was held on March 31, 2017. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

Integrated Resource Plans

NMPRC rules require that investor owned utilities file an IRP every three years. The IRP is required to cover a 20-year planning period and contain an action plan covering the first four years of that period.

2014 IRP

PNM filed its 2014 IRP on July 1, 2014. The four-year action plan was consistent with the replacement resources identified in PNM’s application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. PNM indicated that it planned to meet its anticipated long-term resource needs with a combination of additional renewable energy resources, energy efficiency, and natural gas-fired facilities. Consistent with statute and NMPRC rule, PNM incorporated a public advisory process into the development of its 2014 IRP. On July 31, 2014, several parties requested the NMPRC not to accept the 2014 IRP as compliant with NMPRC rule because to do so could affect the then pending proceeding on PNM’s application to abandon SJGS Units 2 and 3 and for CCNs for certain replacement resources (Note 11) and because they asserted that the IRP did not conform to the NMPRC’s IRP rule. Certain parties also asked that further proceedings on the IRP be held in abeyance until the conclusion of the SJGS abandonment/CCN proceeding. The NMPRC issued an order in August 2014 that docketed a case to determine whether the IRP complied with applicable NMPRC rules. The order also held the case in abeyance pending the issuance of final, non-appealable orders in PNM’s 2015 renewable energy procurement plan case and its application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. The order regarding PNM’s application to abandon SJGS Units 2 and 3 described in Note 11 states that the NMPRC will issue a Notice of Proposed Dismissal in the 2014 IRP docket. On May 4, 2016, the NMPRC issued the Notice of Proposed Dismissal, stating that the docket would be closed with prejudice within thirty days unless good cause was shown why the docket should remain open. On May 31, 2016, NEE filed a request to hold the protests filed against PNM’s IRP in abeyance or to dismiss those protests without prejudice. PNM responded on June 13, 2016 and requested that the NMPRC dismiss the case with prejudice. The NMPRC has not yet acted on its Notice of Proposed Dismissal or the request filed on May 31, 2016. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

2017 IRP

The 2017 IRP will address a 20-year planning period, from 2017 through 2036, and will include an action plan describing PNM’s plan to implement the 2017 IRP in the four-year period following its filing. PNM held its initial public advisory meeting on the 2017 IRP on June 30, 2016. The public advisory process is proceeding in three phases: in the first, PNM will build assumptions and discuss scenarios and sensitivities; in the second, PNM will discuss its analysis; and in the third, PNM will discuss its draft IRP with the public advisory participants. PNM intends to file its 2017 IRP by July 3, 2017, within the time limit prescribed by NMPRC rule. The NMPRC’s order concerning SJGS’ compliance with the BART requirements of the CAA discussed in Note 11 requires PNM to make a filing in 2018 to determine the extent to which SJGS Units 1 and 4 should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after June 30, 2022. To facilitate the 2018 filing, PNM is developing two resource portfolios in the 2017 IRP, one with SJGS continuing beyond mid-2022 and one where it is shut down. On March 17, 2017, PNM announced that preliminary results of its analysis indicate that retirement of SJGS in 2022 could be cost-effective for customers.

On April 20, 2017, PNM released a draft of the 2017 IRP. Key findings in that draft include:


•	Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 after the expiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements would provide long-term cost savings for PNM’s customers


•	PNM exiting its ownership interest in Four Corners after its current coal supply agreement expires in 2031 would also save customers money


•	The best mix of new resources to replace the retired coal generation would include solar energy and flexible natural gas-fired peaking capacity; the mix could include energy storage if the economics support it and wind energy provided additional transmission capacity becomes available


•	Significant increases in future wind energy supplies will likely require new transmission capacity built from Eastern New Mexico to PNM’s service territory


•	PNM should retain the currently leased capacity in PVNGS, which would avoid replacement with carbon-emitting generation


•	PNM should continue to develop and implement energy efficiency and demand management programs


•	PNM should assess the costs and benefits of participating in the California Energy Imbalance Market


•	PNM should analyze its current Reeves Generating Station to consider possible technology improvements to phase out the older generators and replace them with new, more flexible supplies or energy storage


•	PNM should pursue securitization legislation to provide additional customer cost savings and provide funds for replacement resources

The draft of the 2017 IRP sets forth the results of the IRP process to date. Additional input through a continuing public advisory process could lead to further analysis of the resource mix, which could result in revisions from the draft plan. PNM must file the final IRP by July 3, 2017. PNM cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the 2017 IRP process or whether the NMPRC will approve subsequent filings that would encompass actions to implement the conclusions of the 2017 IRP.

San Juan Generating Station Units 2 and 3 Retirement

On December 16, 2015, the NMPRC issued an order approving PNM’s retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 on December 31, 2017. On January 14, 2016, NEE filed an appeal of the order with the NM Supreme Court. Additional information concerning the NMPRC filing and related proceedings is set forth in Note 11.

Application for Certificate of Convenience and Necessity

On April 26, 2016, PNM filed an application for an 80 MW gas plant to be located at SJGS, with an anticipated June 2018 in-service date. On October 13, 2016, PNM filed a motion to vacate the procedural schedule to allow PNM to assess the continued need for the plant in light of possible changed circumstances affecting loads and resources. On October 28, 2016, PNM filed a motion to withdraw its application and close the docket. As grounds for the motion, PNM stated that, based on its updated peak demand forecast, the 80 MW plant would not be needed in 2018. On December 1, 2016, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision that would grant PNM’s motion to withdraw its application. The NMPRC has not yet acted on that recommendation. PNM will continue to evaluate its resource needs as part of its ongoing resource planning activities and during the 2017 IRP process discussed above. PNM’s current capital forecast includes an additional 40 MW of peaking capacity that would be operational in 2020 to meet requirements for operating reserves. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding.

Advanced Metering Infrastructure Application

On February 26, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC requesting approval of a project to replace its existing customer metering equipment with Advanced Metering Infrastructure (“AMI”). The application also asks the NMPRC to authorize the recovery of the cost of the project, up to $87.2 million, in future ratemaking proceedings, as well as to approve the recovery of the remaining undepreciated investment in existing metering equipment estimated to be approximately $33 million at the date of implementation and the costs of customer education and severances for affected employees. PNM does not intend to proceed with the AMI project unless the NMPRC approves the entire application. On August 5, 2016, PNM filed a motion to suspend its AMI application so that it could evaluate the effect of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case. The NMPRC approved this motion. On November 22, 2016, PNM filed a motion to lift the suspension and establish a new procedural schedule. In December 2016, the Hearing Examiner issued an order lifting the suspension and issued a new procedural schedule. Hearings in this matter were held in February and March 2017. The Hearing Examiner has required submission of additional testimony related to the meter contractor’s compliance with construction industries licensure requirements and may schedule a further hearing. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Facebook Data Center Project

On July 8, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for approval of:


•	Two new electric service rates


•	A PPA under which PNM would purchase renewable energy from PNMR Development


•	A special service contract to provide electric service to a prospective new customer, a large Internet company, that was considering locating a data center in PNM’s service area

The NMPRC approved PNM’s application on August 17, 2016. At that time, the new customer was also considering the state of Utah for the location of the data center. On September 15, 2016, PNM filed a notice informing the NMPRC that the customer, Facebook Inc., had announced that it was selecting a site in New Mexico for its new data center.

The customer’s service requirements include the acquisition by PNM of a sufficient amount of new renewable energy resources and RECs to match the energy and capacity requirements of the data center. PNM’s initial procurement will be through a PPA with PNMR Development for the energy production from 30 MW of new solar capacity that PNMR Development will construct and own. The cost of the PPA will be passed through to the customer under a new rate rider. A new special service rate will be applied to the customer’s energy consumption in those hours of the month when the customer’s consumption exceeds the energy production from the new renewable resources. Construction of the first 10 MW of solar capacity is expected to be completed in early 2018, which will coincide with initial operations of the data center, with the remainder of the capacity completed by mid-2018.

The approval order included a provision requiring that in any future rate case filed by PNM requesting an increase in rates of any other customer class, the NMPRC shall determine whether or not any customer class will be subject to increased rates due to the new customer’s fixed “Contribution to Production Charge for System Supplied Energy” and, if so, the NMPRC shall determine whether or not PNM will be allowed to recover such increased costs in the form of increased rates to other customers. In the NM 2016 Rate Case filing discussed above, PNM indicated the Facebook arrangement did not result in increased rates to any other customer class.

Hazard Sharing Agreement

On June 1, 2016, PNM and Tri-State entered into a one-year hazard sharing agreement, which expires on May 31, 2017. Under the agreement, each party will sell the other party 100 MW of capacity and energy on a unit contingent basis, from each party’s designated primary resources, which is SJGS Unit 4 for PNM and Springerville Generating Station Unit 3 for Tri-State. Both purchases and sales are made at the same market index price. In 2016, PNM sold 482,342 MWh for $12.8 million and purchased 484,632 MWh for $12.9 million under the agreement. In the three months ended March 31, 2017, PNM sold 213,533 MWh for $4.8 million and purchased 205,156 MWh for $4.6 million under the agreement. The agreement serves to reduce the magnitude of each party’s single largest generating hazard and assists in enhancing the reliability and efficiency of their respective operations. PNM and Tri-State have entered into an additional agreement, under substantially identical terms, for a term of five years beginning June 1, 2017, subject to NMPRC approval. NMPRC approval was not required for the one-year agreement, but is required for the five-year agreement. On November 30, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for approval of the five-year agreement. A public hearing on PNM’s request was held on March 23, 2017. On April 26, 2017, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued a recommended decision that would approve PNM’s application. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Firm-Requirements Wholesale Customers – Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc.

As discussed in Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2016 Annual Reports on Form 10-K, NEC filed a petition on April 8, 2015 for a declaratory order requesting that FERC find that NEC can purchase an unlimited amount of power and energy from third party supplier(s) under its PSA with PNM. Following proceedings before a settlement judge, PNM and NEC entered into, and filed with FERC, a settlement agreement on October 29, 2015 that includes certain amendments to the PSA and related contracts on file with FERC. FERC approved the settlement on January 21, 2016. Under the settlement agreement, PNM served all of NEC’s load in 2016 at reduced demand and energy rates from those under the PSA. Beginning January 1, 2016, NEC also paid certain third-party transmission costs that it only partially paid previously. The PSA and related transmission agreements terminated on December 31, 2016. In 2017, PNM is serving 10 MW of NEC’s load under a short term coordination tariff at a rate lower than provided under the PSA. Amounts billed to NEC were $1.1 million and $5.4 million in the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016. PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case discussed above reflects a reallocation of costs among regulatory jurisdictions reflecting the termination of the contract to serve NEC.

TNMP

Advanced Meter System Deployment

In July 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement and authorized an AMS deployment plan that permits TNMP to collect $113.4 million in deployment costs through a surcharge over a 12-year period. TNMP began collecting the surcharge on August 11, 2011. Deployment of advanced meters began in September 2011. TNMP completed its mass deployment in 2016 and has installed more than 242,000 advanced meters.

The PUCT adopted a rule creating a non-standard metering service for retail customers choosing to decline standard metering service via an advanced meter. The cost of providing non-standard metering service is to be borne by opt-out customers through an initial fee and ongoing monthly charge. As approved by the PUCT, TNMP is recovering $0.2 million in costs through initial fees ranging from $63.97 to $168.61 and ongoing annual expenses of $0.5 million through a $36.78 monthly fee. These amounts presume up to 1,081 consumers will elect the non-standard meter service, but TNMP has the right to adjust the fees if the number of anticipated consumers differs from that estimate. As of April 24, 2017, 103 consumers have made the election. TNMP does not expect the implementation of non-standard metering service to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Transmission Cost of Service Rates

TNMP can update its transmission rates twice per year to reflect changes in its invested capital. Updated rates reflect the addition and retirement of transmission facilities, including appropriate depreciation, federal income tax and other associated taxes, and the approved rate of return on such facilities. The following sets forth TNMP’s recent interim transmission cost rate increases:



Effective Date	Approved Increase in Rate Base		Annual Increase in Revenue
	(in millions)
September 10, 2015	$	7.0	$	1.4
March 23, 2016	25.8		4.3
September 8, 2016	9.5		1.8
March 14, 2017	30.2		4.8

On March 23, 2017, the PUCT staff filed proposed amendments to the interim TCOS filing rule. If approved, the amendments could reduce the frequency of such filings to once per year. The amendments could also reduce the amount recovered by requiring that changes in accumulated deferred income taxes be considered and would preclude filings by utilities earning more than their authorized rate of return using weather-normalized data. The PUCT has not yet approved the amendments for publication. Initial comments on the proposed rule will be due 30 days after publication. TNMP cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Periodic Distribution Rate Adjustment

PUCT rules permit interim rate adjustments to reflect changes in investments in distribution assets. Distribution utilities may file for a periodic rate adjustment between April 1 and April 8 of each year as long as the electric utility is not earning more than its authorized rate of return using weather-normalized data. However, TNMP has not made a filing to adjust rates for additional investments in distribution assets. In connection with TNMP’s deployment of its advance meter system discussed above, TNMP committed to file a general rate case no later than September 1, 2018. TNMP has also committed that it would not file a request for an increase in rates to reflect changes in investments in distribution assets until after the 2018 general rate case.

Competition Transition Charge Compliance Filing

In connection with the adoption of legislation that deregulated electric utilities operating within ERCOT, TNMP was allowed to recover its stranded costs through the CTC and to also recover a carrying charge on the CTC. Further, the order authorizing TNMP's CTC included a true-up provision requiring an adjustment to the CTC due to a cumulative over- or under-collection of revenues, including interest, greater-than or equal to 15% of the most recent annual CTC funding amount. On March 13, 2017, TNMP made a filing to true-up the CTC. The requested adjustment reduces the collection of the amortization by $1.1 million annually. On April 3, 2017, the PUCT staff filed its recommendation to approve the requested adjustment with the change to be effective June 1, 2017.