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 2018 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 other 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. 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 13). 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 CSA (Note 11). PNM’s filing indicated that recovery for fuel related costs would be reduced by approximately $42.9 million reflecting the current SJGS CSA, 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 (the “August 2016 RD”). The August 2016 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 August 2016 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 13); the August 2016 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 when the August 2016 RD was issued), 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 13) and related property taxes, which were $1.5 million per year when the August 2016 RD was issued; the August 2016 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 August 2016 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 August 2016 RD also proposed that all fuel costs be removed from base rates and be recovered through the FPPAC. In addition, the August 2016 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 August 2016 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 August 2016 RD proposed approving PNM’s proposals for revised depreciation rates (except for requiring depreciation on Four Corners be calculated based on a 2041 life rather than the 2031 life proposed by PNM), the inclusion of construction work in progress in rate base, and ratemaking treatment of the “prepaid pension asset.” The August 2016 RD proposed retail customers receive 100% of the New Mexico jurisdictional portion of revenues from “refined coal” (a third-party pre-treatment process) at SJGS. The August 2016 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 August 2016 RD and filed exceptions to defend its prudent utility investments. Other parties also filed exceptions to the August 2016 RD.

On September 28, 2016, the NMPRC issued an order 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 August 2016 RD, but with certain significant modifications. The modifications to the August 2016 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


•	Allowing 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

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 to PNM’s appeal. On October 26, 2016, PNM filed a statement of issues related to its appeal with the NM Supreme Court, which stated 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 BDT equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4. In addition, PNM’s statement indicated it is appealing the following specific 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 Four Corners CSA


•	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

The NM Supreme Court orally 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.

On February 17, 2017, PNM filed its Brief in Chief, and pursuant to the court’s rules, the briefing schedule was completed on July 21, 2017. Oral argument at the NM Supreme Court was held on October 30, 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 a loss 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. As of September 30, 2016, 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 indicated 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. As of September 30, 2016, PNM estimated it would 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. PNM concluded that a range of probable loss resulted from the NMPRC order in the NM 2015 Rate Case; that the minimum amount of loss was 15 months of capital cost recovery that the order disallowed for PNM’s investments in the PVNGS Unit 2 purchases, PVNGS Unit 2 capitalized improvements, and BDT; and that no amount within the range of possible loss was a better estimate than any other amount. Accordingly, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $6.8 million at September 30, 2016 for the capital costs that would not be recovered 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 could no longer assert that those assets were probable of being recovered through the ratemaking process.

PNM also evaluated the accounting consequences of the issues that are being appealed by the cross-appellants. PNM does not believe the issues raised in the cross-appeals have substantial merit. Accordingly, PNM does not believe that the likelihood of the cross-appeals being successful is probable and, therefore, no loss has been recorded related to the issues subject to the cross-appeals.

The NM Supreme Court did not issue a decision on the appeals related to the NM 2015 Rate Case by December 31, 2017, which was 15 months from the date of the NMPRC’s order in that case. As a result, PNM reevaluated the accounting consequences of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case resulting in an additional pre-tax loss of $3.1 million, which represented seven months of capital cost recovery that the order disallowed and was not expected to be recovered through July 31, 2018.

During the second half of 2018, PNM updated its evaluation of the estimated time frame it would take for resolution of the matter resulting in additional pre-tax losses of $4.0 million, representing capital cost recovery that the order disallowed and that PNM estimated would not be recovered through April 30, 2019.

Since the NM Supreme Court did not issue a decision on the appeals by March 31, 2019, PNM again reevaluated the accounting consequences of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case. As of March 31, 2019, PNM estimates the most likely period for the NM Supreme Court to issue a decision in the case and for the NMPRC to take any on any remanded issues is four months. As a result, PNM recorded an additional pre-tax loss of $1.3 million as of March 31, 2019, representing capital cost recovery that the order disallowed and will not be recovered through July 31, 2019. Further losses will be recorded if the currently estimated time frame for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues is extended.

PNM continues to believe that the disallowed investments, which are the subject of PNM’s appeal, were prudent 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 recognized in future periods reflecting that rates charged to customers would not recover those costs as they are incurred. 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, 2019, 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 $72.6 million, after considering the losses recorded to date


•	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 $37.6 million, after considering the losses recorded to date


•	The remaining costs to convert SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT; the net book value of these assets was $49.7 million, after considering the losses recorded to date

Although PNM does not believe that the likelihood of the cross-appeals being successful is probable, it is unable to predict what decision the NM Supreme Court will reach. If the NM Supreme Court were to overturn all of the issues subject to the cross-appeals and, upon remand, the NMPRC did not provide any cost 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 $144.7 million (which amount includes $72.6 million that is the subject of PNM’s appeal discussed above) at March 31, 2019, after considering the losses recorded to date. 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 a 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. PNM’s original application used a FTY beginning January 1, 2018 and requested an increase in base non-fuel revenues of $99.2 million based on an ROE of 10.125%. The primary drivers of PNM’s revenue deficiency included implementation of modifications to PNM’s resource portfolio, which were approved by the NMPRC in December 2015 as part of the SJGS regional haze compliance plan, infrastructure investments, including environmental upgrades at Four Corners, declines in forecasted energy sales due to successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors, and updates to FERC/retail jurisdictional allocations.

After extensive settlement negotiations and public proceedings, the NMPRC issued a Revised Order Partially Adopting Certification of Stipulation dated January 10, 2018 (the “Revised Order”). The key terms of the Revised Order include:


•	An increase in base non-fuel revenues totaling $10.3 million, which includes a reduction to reflect the impact of the decrease in the federal corporate income tax rate and updates to PNM’s cost of debt (aggregating an estimated $47.6 million annually)


•	A ROE of 9.575%


•	Returning to customers over a three-year period the benefit of the reduction in the New Mexico corporate income tax rate (Note 14) to the extent attributable to PNM’s retail operations


•	Disallowing PNM’s ability to collect an equity return on its $90.1 million investment in SCRs at Four Corners and on $58.0 million of then projected capital improvements during the period July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018, but allowing recovery of the total $148.1 million of investments with a debt-only return


•	An agreement to not implement non-fuel base rate changes, other than changes related to PNM’s rate riders, with an effective date prior to January 1, 2020


•	A requirement to consider the prudency of PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners in a future proceeding

In accordance with the settlement agreement and the NMPRC’s final order, PNM implemented 50% of the approved increase for service rendered beginning February 1, 2018 and implemented the rest of the increase for service rendered beginning January 1, 2019.

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 NMPRC staff on the one hand, and the utilities on the other.” The order posed the following questions: whether a standardized method 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. Initial comments were filed in July 2017 and several public workshops have been held. To date, no agreement has been reached. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding.

Renewable Portfolio Standard

Prior to the enactment of the ETA, the REA established 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. As discussed in Note 11, the ETA was signed into law on March 22, 2019. The ETA amends the REA and requires utilities operating in New Mexico to have renewable portfolios equal to 20% by 2020, 40% by 2025, 50% by 2030, 80% by 2040, and 100% zero-carbon energy by 2045. The ETA also removes diversity requirements and certain customer caps and exemptions relating to the application of the RPS under the REA.

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. The ETA sets a new threshold based on average annual levelized resource cost basis. 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:


•	157 MW of PNM-owned solar-PV facilities, including 50 MW of PNM-owned solar-PV facilities approved by the NMPRC in PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan and are expected to be placed in commercial operation by the end of 2019


•	A PPA through 2044 for the output of New Mexico Wind, having a current aggregate capacity of 204 MW, and a PPA through 2035 for the output of Red Mesa Wind, having an aggregate capacity of 102 MW


•	A PPA through 2042 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 15 MW


•	Solar distributed generation, aggregating 106.8 MW at March 31, 2019, 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

On June 1, 2017, PNM filed its 2018 renewable energy procurement plan. PNM requested approval to procure an additional 80 GWh in 2019 and 105 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of New Mexico Wind; approval to procure an additional 55 GWh in 2019 and 77 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal; approval to procure 50 MW of new solar facilities to be constructed beginning in 2018, and continuation of customer REC purchase programs and other purchases of RECs to ensure annual compliance with the RPS. The plan also sought a variance from the “other” diversity category in 2018 due to a revised production forecast of the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility in 2018. A public hearing on the application was held in September 2017. On October 17, 2017, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision that PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan be approved by the NMPRC, except for the re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal and PNM’s request to procure 50 MW of new solar facilities. The Hearing Examiner recommended that the PPA for the output of energy from Lightning Dock Geothermal be terminated effective January 1, 2018. The Hearing Examiner also recommended that PNM be required to issue another all-renewables RFP allowing developers to utilize PNM-owned sites to construct facilities, the output from which facilities would be sold to PNM through PPAs. PNM filed exceptions contesting the Hearing Examiner’s proposals. On November 15, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order approving PNM’s plan and rejecting the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations. On November 29, 2017, NMIEC filed an appeal with the NM Supreme Court objecting to the fuel allocation methodology. On December 14, 2017, NEE filed a motion to intervene and cross-appeal objecting to the approval of the 50 MW of new solar facilities. On December 18, 2017, PNM filed a motion to intervene, which was granted. NMIEC filed a motion for a partial stay of the NMPRC order, which was denied. Briefing on NMIEC’s appeal of the fuel allocation methodology is complete. On June 20, 2018, NEE filed its Brief in Chief with the NM Supreme Court stating, among other things, that PNM’s process favored ownership of the 50 MW solar facilities compared to PPAs. PNM and the NMPRC each filed Answer Briefs on September 4, 2018 stating there is substantial evidence in the case record to support the NMPRC’s decision and that PNM’s RFP process was reasonable, complied with RPS requirements, and consistent with industry standards. NEE’s Reply Brief was filed on October 15, 2018. On May 6, 2019, the NM Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the issues of the fuel allocation methodology and the reasonableness of the RFP process. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On June 1, 2018, PNM filed its 2019 renewable energy procurement plan. The plan meets RPS and diversity requirements for 2019 and 2020 using resources already approved by the NMPRC and did not propose any significant new procurements. PNM projects that the plan will be within the RCT in 2019 and will slightly exceed the current RCT in 2020. Public hearings were held on the case in September and October 2018. The NMPRC approved PNM’s 2019 renewable energy procurement plan on November 28, 2018.

As discussed above, the ETA removes certain customer caps and exemptions relating to the application of the RPS under the REA. As a result of these changes, PNM will be required to procure additional energy from renewable resources to meet the 20% by 2020 requirement under the RPS. PNM expects to request NMPRC approval of a PPA for wind generation capacity, which would utilize the BB2 Line to deliver the power, to meet this requirement. See additional discussion below under Application For a New 345 KV Transmission Line. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

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. In its 2019 renewable energy procurement plan case, which was approved by the NMPRC on November 28, 2018, PNM proposed to collect $49.6 million for the year. The 2019 renewable energy procurement plan became effective on January 1, 2019. PNM recorded revenues from the rider of $12.7 million and $10.9 million in the three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018.

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 did not exceed such limitation in 2018.

Energy Efficiency and Load Management

Petition for Energy Efficiency Disincentive

PNM’s application in the NM 2016 Rate Case had requested a “lost contribution to fixed cost” mechanism to address the disincentives associated with PNM’s energy efficiency programs. In the revised stipulation to that case, PNM agreed to withdraw its proposal for such a mechanism and to address energy efficiency disincentives in a future docket. On March 2, 2018, PNM filed a petition proposing a “lost contribution to fixed cost mechanism” with substantially the same terms as those proposed in the NM 2016 Rate Case application. The Hearing Examiner issued a procedural order that included a public hearing to begin on October 30, 2018. Subsequently, the Hearing Examiner extended the deadline to file response testimony until December 19, 2018 and vacated the hearing schedule. On December 19, 2018, the Hearing Examiner approved a joint motion filed by PNM and other parties in the case to hold the proceedings in abeyance until mid-March 2019. During the 2019 New Mexico legislative session, the EUEA was amended to, among other things, include a decoupling mechanism for disincentives, preclude a reduction to a utility’s ROE based on approval of disincentive or incentive mechanisms, and to establish savings targets for the period 2021 through 2025. On May 6, 2019, PNM submitted a request to the NMPRC to dismiss this matter and indicating that PNM will propose a mechanism to address disincentives in accordance with the amended EUEA in a future general rate case filing. PNM cannot 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. On July 31, 2014, several parties requested the NMPRC to not 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 and because they asserted that the 2014 IRP did not conform to the NMPRC’s IRP rule. The NMPRC issued an order in August 2014 that docketed a case to determine whether the 2014 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. On May 4, 2016, the NMPRC issued a 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 2014 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

PNM filed its 2017 IRP on July 3, 2017. The 2017 IRP addresses the 20-year planning period from 2017 through 2036 and includes an action plan describing PNM’s plan to implement the 2017 IRP in the four-year period following its filing. The 2017 IRP analyzed several scenarios utilizing assumptions that PNM continues service from its SJGS capacity beyond mid-2022 and that PNM retires its capacity after mid-2022. Key findings of the 2017 IRP 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 to be 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 Independent System Operator Western Energy Imbalance Market


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

Protests to the 2017 IRP were filed by several parties. The issues addressed in the protests included the future of PNM’s interests in SJGS, Four Corners, and PVNGS and the timing of future procurement of renewable resources. On January 16, 2018, the Hearing Examiner issued an order setting the scope of the proceedings as the 2017 IRP’s compliance with the applicable statute and NMPRC rules. Hearings were held in June 2018. On October 26, 2018, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision recommending that the NMPRC accept PNM’s 2017 IRP as compliant with the applicable statute and NMPRC rules. On December 19, 2018, the NMPRC issued a final order accepting the Hearing Examiner’s recommended decision. On January 18, 2019, the Board of the County of Commissioners for San Juan County, New Mexico, the City of Farmington, New Mexico, and other parties filed a Notice of Appeal with the NM Supreme Court regarding the NMPRC’s final order in PNM’s 2017 IRP. The due date for Statements of Issues in the appeal has been extended to May 10, 2019 at the request of appellants in the case. On January 18, 2019, NEE submitted a motion requesting the NMPRC reconsider its acceptance of PNM’s 2017 IRP and alleging informational inadequacy and deficiencies in PNM’s filing. On January 29, 2019, PNM submitted a filing to the NMPRC in response to NEE’s motion for reconsideration. In its response, PNM stated that the issues raised by NEE had already been considered and rejected by the NMPRC in its December 19, 2018 final order and that the NMPRC lacks jurisdiction over the matters because the NMPRC’s final order has been appealed to the NM Supreme Court. The NMPRC did not take action on NEE’s motion for reconsideration. On February 19, 2019, NEE filed a motion with the NM Supreme Court to intervene in the appeal and to seek remand of the matter to the NMPRC. On March 11, 2019, PNM filed its response with the NM Supreme Court stating that the NMPRC has already considered and, by operation of law, denied NEE’s motion for reconsideration. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

The NMPRC’s order concerning SJGS’ compliance with the BART requirements of the CAA required 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. PNM submitted its December 2018 Compliance Filing to the NMPRC on December 31, 2018 indicating that, consistent with the conclusions reached in the 2017 IRP, PNM’s customers would benefit from the retirement of PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022. The December 2018 Compliance Filing and the 2017 IRP are not a final determinations of PNM’s future generation portfolio. Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS capacity will require future NMPRC approval. PNM will also be required to obtain NMPRC approval of an exit from Four Corners, which PNM will seek at an appropriate time in the future. Likewise, NMPRC approval of new generation resources through CCNs, PPAs, or other applicable filings, would be required. The outcome of these future abandonment filings and the related impact on PNM’s generation portfolio will also be significantly influenced by the recent enactment of the ETA. See Note 11. PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

Cost Recovery Related to Joining the EIM

The California Independent System Operator (“CAISO”) developed the Western Energy Imbalance Market (“EIM”) as a real-time wholesale energy trading market that enables participating electric utilities to buy and sell energy. The EIM aggregates the variability of electricity generation and load for multiple balancing authority areas and utility jurisdictions. In addition, the EIM facilitates greater integration of renewable resources through the aggregation of flexible resources by capturing diversity benefits from the expanded geographic footprint and the expanded potential uses for those resources.

In 2018, PNM completed a cost-benefit analysis of participating in the EIM. PNM’s analysis indicated participation in the EIM would provide substantial benefits to retail customers. On August 22, 2018, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC requesting, among other things, to recover an estimated $20.9 million of initial capital investments and authorization to establish a regulatory asset to recover an estimated $7.4 million of other expenses that would be incurred in order to join the EIM. PNM’s application proposed the regulatory asset be adjusted to provide for full recovery of such costs, including carrying charges, until the effective date of new rates in PNM’s next general rate case. PNM’s application also proposed the benefits of participating in the EIM be credited to retail customers through PNM’s existing FPPAC and that PNM would seek recovery of its costs in a future proceeding. A public hearing was held on December 12, 2018. On December 19, 2018, the NMPRC issued an order approving the establishment of a regulatory asset to recover PNM’s cost of joining the EIM. On January 17, 2019, ABCWUA filed a motion to reopen the case and to reconsider the NMPRC’s order approving the establishment of a regulatory asset. PNM submitted its response opposing reconsideration of the case on January 28, 2019. On February 6, 2019, the NMPRC issued an order granting rehearing and vacating the December 19, 2018 order. On February 27, 2019, the NMPRC issued a procedural order appointing a Hearing Examiner and requiring the Hearing Examiner to report to the NMPRC on whether the matter should be reopened. On March 18, 2019, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision recommending approval of the establishment of a regulatory asset but deferring certain rate making issues, including but not limited to issues related to implementation and ongoing EIM costs and savings, the prudence and reasonableness of costs to be included in the regulatory asset, and the period over which costs would be charged to customers. PNM filed limited exceptions to the recommended decision related to the deferral of certain reasonableness findings. The NMPRC issued a final order adopting the Hearing Examiner’s recommended decision on March 27, 2019. On April 12, 2019, PNM and other parties filed a joint motion requesting the NMPRC clarify that the quarterly benefits reports prepared by CAISO be used to determine the benefits of participating in the EIM, as well as to support the prudence of costs incurred to join the EIM. On April 24, 2019, the NMPRC issued an order granting the joint motion for clarification and indicating the CAISO quarterly benefits reports may be used in a future rate case. PNM anticipates it will begin participating in the EIM in April 2021.

Facebook, Inc. Data Center Project

As discussed in Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2018 Annual Reports on Form 10-K, in 2016, the NMPRC approved a PNM application for arrangements in connection with services to be provided to Facebook, Inc. for a data center being constructed in PNM’s service area. Facebook’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. The cost of renewable energy procured is passed through to Facebook under a rate rider. A special service rate is applied to Facebook’s energy consumption in those hours of the month when their consumption exceeds the energy production from the renewable resources. In late 2017, PNM’s executed its initial procurement for the energy production from 30 MW of solar-PV capacity from NMRD, a 50% equity method of investee PNMR Development. Of this capacity, 10 MW began commercial operation in each of January 2018, March 2018, and May 2018.

PNM obtained NMPRC approval to enter into additional 25-year PPAs to purchase renewable energy and RECs to be used by PNM to supply renewable energy to Facebook. These PPAs include the purchase of the power and RECs from:


•	Casa Mesa Wind, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, which is located near House, New Mexico, has a total capacity of 50 MW, and became operational in November 2018


•	A 166 MW portion of the La Joya Wind Project, owned by Avangrid Renewables, LLC, which is expected to be located near Estancia, New Mexico and be operational in November 2020


•	Route 66 Solar Energy Center, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC., which is expected to be located west of Albuquerque, New Mexico, have a total capacity of 50 MW, and be operational in December 2021

•

Two PPAs to purchase renewable energy and RECs from an aggregate of approximately 100 MW of capacity from two solar-PV facilities to be owned and operated by NMRD. NMRD is required to obtain FERC approval of the PPAs. Subject to FERC approval, the first 50 MW of these facilities is expected to begin commercial operation in December 2019 and the remaining capacity is expected to begin commercial operation in June 2020.

On March 15, 2019, PNM participated with NMRD in an application requesting FERC approval of the two PPAs aggregating approximately 100 MW of capacity. PNM cannot predict if the FERC will approve this filing.

Application For a New 345 KV Transmission Line

On August 10, 2018, PNM filed an application seeking NMPRC approval of a CCN to construct and operate a 345 KV transmission line and associated facilities (the “BB2 Line”), and to determine the rate making treatment to apply to the BB2 line and related rights-of-way. In the application, PNM states that the BB2 line would run adjacent to one of PNM’s existing transmission lines and is necessary to serve additional renewable generating resources to be located in eastern New Mexico. PNM’s use of the BB2 line would benefit all customers and would include delivery of approximately 166 MW of renewable energy and RECs under a PPA, which had previously been approved by the NMPRC, from La Joya Wind. The energy and RECs from the La Joya Wind PPA would be used to a serve the needs of a data center being constructed in PNM’s service territory and the capacity and energy from the PPA will also be used to meet the system needs of all PNM customers. See additional discussion in Facebook, Inc. Data Center Project above. PNM’s application requested that the NMPRC apply standard ratemaking treatment to the estimated $85 million cost of the project resulting in a jurisdictional allocation of costs to all of PNM’s transmission and retail customers. NMPRC staff supported PNM’s proposed ratemaking treatment of the BB2 project and indicated that the capacity and energy of the La Joya PPA and related network upgrades to PNM’s transmission system would benefit all of PNM’s customers. On March 11, 2019, the Hearing Examiner assigned to the application issued a recommended decision recommending approval of the CCN and related rights-of-way but recommending the NMPRC deny PNM’s request to allocate a portion of cost of the BB2 Line to retail customers. The Hearing Examiner’s recommendation indicated the costs not recovered from retail customers be directly reimbursed to PNM by Facebook, Inc. As a result, Facebook, Inc. would be responsible for approximately 46 percent, or $39.0 million, of the estimated cost of the project. On March 20, 2019, PNM filed exceptions to the recommended decision and requested oral argument. In its filing, PNM refuted the proposed finding that the BB2 Line is not part of PNM’s overall transmission system, opposed the recommendation that approximately 46 percent of the estimated cost of the project be directly assigned to Facebook, Inc. and presented legal arguments in support of PNM’s originally proposed ratemaking treatment. On April 16, 2019, the NMPRC issued an order approving the Hearing Examiner’s recommended decision, including the requirement that PNM be directly reimbursed by Facebook, Inc. In late April 2019, PNM and other parties submitted filings with the NMPRC requesting rehearing and seeking reconsideration of the NMPRC’s decision to deny standard ratemaking treatment of the cost of the BB2 Line and associated facilities. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

TNMP

TNMP 2018 Rate Case

On May 30, 2018, TNMP filed a general rate proceeding with the PUCT (the “TNMP 2018 Rate Case”) requesting an annual increase to base rates of $25.9 million based on a requested ROE of 10.5%, a cost of debt of 7.2%, and a capital structure comprised of 50% debt and 50% equity. TNMP’s application included a request to establish new rate riders to recover Hurricane Harvey restoration, rate case, and additional vegetation management costs. The application also included the integration of revenues previously recorded under the AMS rider and collection of other unrecovered AMS investments into base rates. In 2018, TNMP recorded revenues of $20.2 million under the AMS rider. The TNMP 2018 Rate Case application also proposed to return the regulatory liability recorded at December 31, 2017 related to federal tax reform to customers and to reduce the federal corporate income tax rate to 21%.

On December 20, 2018, the PUCT approved an unopposed settlement agreement in the case. The PUCT’s final order results in a $10.0 million annual increase to base rates. The key elements of the approved settlement include a ROE of 9.65%, a cost of debt of 6.44%, and a capital structure comprised of 55% debt and 45% equity. As stated by the settlement agreement, the PUCT’s final order excludes certain items from rate base that were requested in TNMP’s original filing, including approximately $10.6 million of transmission investments that TNMP included in its January 2019 transmission cost of service filing, which was approved by the PUCT in March 2019. In addition, the PUCT’s final order requires TNMP to refund approximately $37.8 million of the regulatory liability recorded at December 31, 2017 related to federal tax reform to customers over a period of five years and the remaining amount over the estimated useful lives of plant in service as of December 31, 2017; approves TNMP’s request to integrate revenues historically recorded under TNMP’s AMS rider, as well as other unrecovered AMS investments, into base rates; approves TNMP’s request for new depreciation rates; and approves a new rider to recover Hurricane Harvey restoration costs, net of amounts to be refunded to customers resulting from the reduction in the federal income tax rate in 2018. See Note 14. The TNMP 2018 Rate Case also resulted in a reallocation of costs between TNMP’s transmission and retail customers and other rate design changes that reallocated costs between certain demand-based customers and customers billed on a volumetric basis. New rates under the TNMP 2018 Rate Case were effective beginning January 1, 2019.

Transmission Cost of Service Rates

TNMP can update its transmission cost of service (“TCOS”) rates twice per year to reflect changes in its invested capital although updates are not allowed while a general rate case is in process. 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 8, 2016	$	9.5	$	1.8
March 14, 2017	30.2		4.8
September 13, 2017	27.5		4.7
March 27, 2018	32.0		0.6
March 21, 2019	111.8		14.3

Order Related to Changes in Federal Income Tax Rates

On January 25, 2018, the PUCT issued an accounting order that addresses the change in the federal corporate income tax rates on investor-owned utilities in the state of Texas. The order required investor-owned utilities to record a regulatory liability equal to the reduction in accumulated federal deferred income tax balances at the end of 2017 due to the change in the federal corporate income tax rate.

In addition, the order required that a regulatory liability be recorded to reflect the difference between revenues collected under existing rates and those that would have been collected had those rates been set reflecting federal income tax reform beginning on the date of the order (Note 14). In compliance with the PUCT order, during the three months ended March 31, 2018, TNMP reduced revenues by $1.5 million to reflect the impact of the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate beginning January 25, 2018. As discussed above, the total amount owed for the year ended 2018 of $5.4 million was offset against TNMP’s Hurricane Harvey restoration costs as of December 31, 2018 and is being refunded to customers as a component of a new rate rider over a period of no more than five years beginning on January 1, 2019.

Energy Efficiency

TNMP recovers the costs of its energy efficiency programs through an energy efficiency cost recovery factor (“EECRF”), which includes projected program costs, under and over collected costs from prior years, rate case expenses, and performance bonuses (if programs exceed mandated savings goals). On May 30, 2018, TNMP filed its request to adjust the EECRF to reflect changes in costs for 2019. The total amount requested was $5.7 million, which included a performance bonus of $0.9 million based on TNMP’s energy efficiency achievements in the 2017 plan year. On June 21, 2018, the PUCT issued a declaratory order announcing the PUCT’s interpretation of the bonus calculation in its rule. The order does not affect cost recovery but reduces the bonus calculation as filed by utilities in their current EECRF proceedings. Accordingly, in June of 2018, TNMP reduced its estimated performance bonus for the 2017 plan year to $0.8 million. On August 6, 2018, TNMP and other parties to the case reached a unanimous settlement stipulation to provide $5.6 million of EECRF recovery, which includes a performance bonus of $0.8 million. On October 12, 2018, the PUCT approved the settlement stipulation with rates to become effective on March 1, 2019.