Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Overview There are various claims and lawsuits pending against the Company. In addition, the Company is subject to federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations and periodically participates in the investigation and remediation of various sites. In addition, the Company periodically enters into financial commitments in connection with its business operations. Also, the Company is involved in various legal and regulatory proceedings in the normal course of its business. See Note 12. It is not possible at this time for the Company to determine fully the effect of all litigation and other legal and regulatory proceedings on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. With respect to some of the items listed below, the Company has determined that a loss is not probable or that, to the extent probable, cannot be reasonably estimated. In some cases, the Company is not able to predict with any degree of certainty the range of possible loss that could be incurred. The Company assesses legal and regulatory matters based on current information and makes judgments concerning their potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of any damages sought, and the probability of success. Such judgments are made with the understanding that the outcome of any litigation, investigation, or other legal proceeding is inherently uncertain. The Company records liabilities for matters where it is probable a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable. The actual outcomes of the items listed below could ultimately differ from the judgments made and the differences could be material. The Company cannot make any assurances that the amount of reserves or potential insurance coverage will be sufficient to cover the cash obligations that might be incurred as a result of litigation or regulatory proceedings. Except as otherwise disclosed, the Company does not expect that any known lawsuits, environmental costs, and commitments will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Additional information concerning commitments and contingencies is contained in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2021 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. Commitments and Contingencies Related to the Environment Nuclear Spent Fuel and Waste Disposal Nuclear power plant operators are required to enter into spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE that require the DOE to accept and dispose of all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes generated by domestic power reactors. Although the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required the DOE to develop a permanent repository for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel by 1998, the DOE announced that it would not be able to open the repository by 1998 and sought to excuse its performance of these requirements. In November 1997, the DC Circuit issued a decision preventing the DOE from excusing its own delay but refused to order the DOE to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel. Based on this decision and the DOE’s delay, a number of utilities, including APS (on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS owners, including PNM), filed damages actions against the DOE in the Court of Federal Claims. The lawsuits filed by APS alleged that damages were incurred due to DOE’s continuing failure to remove spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste from PVNGS. In August 2014, APS and the DOE entered into a settlement agreement that establishes a process for the payment of claims for costs incurred through December 31, 2019. In July 2020, APS accepted the DOE's extension of the settlement agreement for recovery of costs incurred through December 31, 2022. Under the settlement agreement, APS must submit claims annually for payment of allowable costs. PNM records estimated claims on a quarterly basis. The benefit from the claims is passed through to customers under the FPPAC to the extent applicable to NMPRC regulated operations. PNM estimates that it will incur approximately $59.6 million (in 2019 dollars) for its share of the costs related to the on-site interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at PVNGS during the term of the operating licenses. PNM accrues these costs as a component of fuel expense as the nuclear fuel is consumed. At March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, PNM had a liability for interim storage costs of $12.4 million and $13.0 million, which is included in other deferred credits. PVNGS has sufficient capacity at its on-site Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (“ISFSI”) to store all of the nuclear fuel that will be irradiated during the initial operating license period, which ends in December 2027. Additionally, PVNGS has sufficient capacity at its on-site ISFSI to store a portion of the fuel that will be irradiated during the period of extended operation, which ends in November 2047. If uncertainties regarding the U.S. government’s obligation to accept and store spent fuel are not favorably resolved, APS will evaluate alternative storage solutions that may obviate the need to expand the ISFSI to accommodate all of the fuel that will be irradiated during the period of extended operation. The Energy Transition Act In 2019, the Governor signed into New Mexico state law Senate Bill 489, known as the Energy Transition Act (“ETA”). The ETA became effective as of June 14, 2019 and sets a statewide standard that requires investor-owned electric utilities to have specified percentages of their electric-generating portfolios be from renewable and zero-carbon generating resources. The ETA amends the REA and requires utilities operating in New Mexico to have renewable portfolios equal to 40% by 2025, 50% by 2030, 80% by 2040, and 100% zero-carbon energy by 2045. The ETA also amends sections of the REA to allow for the recovery of undepreciated investments and decommissioning costs related to qualifying EGUs that the NMPRC has required be removed from retail jurisdictional rates, provided replacement resources to be included in retail rates have lower or zero-carbon emissions. The ETA requires the NMPRC to review and approve utilities’ annual renewable portfolio plans to ensure compliance with the RPS. The ETA also directs the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board to adopt standards of performance that limit CO2 emissions to no more than 1,100 lbs. per MWh beginning January 1, 2023 for new or existing coal-fired EGUs with original installed capacities exceeding 300 MW. The ETA provides for a transition from fossil-fuel generation resources to renewable and other carbon-free resources through certain provisions relating to the abandonment of coal-fired generating facilities. These provisions include the use of energy transition bonds, which are designed to be highly rated bonds that can be issued to finance certain costs of abandoning coal-fired facilities that are retired prior to January 1, 2023 for facilities operated by a “qualifying utility,” or prior to January 1, 2032 for facilities that are not operated by a qualifying utility. The amount of energy transition bonds that can be issued to recover abandonment costs is limited to the lesser of $375.0 million or 150% of the undepreciated investment of the facility as of the abandonment date. Proceeds provided by energy transition bonds must be used only for purposes related to providing utility service to customers and to pay energy transition costs (as defined by the ETA). These costs may include plant decommissioning and coal mine reclamation costs provided those costs have not previously been recovered from customers or disallowed by the NMPRC or by a court order. Proceeds from energy transition bonds may also be used to fund severances for employees of the retired facility and related coal mine and to promote economic development, education and job training in areas impacted by the retirement of the coal-fired facilities. Energy transition bonds must be issued under a NMPRC-approved financing order, are secured by “energy transition property,” are non-recourse to the issuing utility, and repaid by a non-bypassable charge paid by all customers of the issuing utility. These customer charges are subject to an adjustment mechanism designed to provide for timely and complete payment of principal and interest due under the energy transition bonds. The ETA also provides that utilities must obtain NMPRC approval of competitively procured replacement resources that shall be evaluated based on their cost, economic development opportunity, ability to provide jobs with comparable pay and benefits to those lost upon retirement of the facility, and that do not exceed emissions thresholds specified in the ETA. In determining whether to approve replacement resources, the NMPRC must give preference to resources with the least environmental impacts, those with higher ratios of capital costs to fuel costs, and those located in the school district of the abandoned facility. The ETA also provides for the procurement of energy storage facilities and gives utilities discretion to maintain, control, and operate these systems to ensure reliable and efficient service. The ETA will have a significant impact on PNM’s future generation portfolio, including PNM’s planned retirement of SJGS in 2022 and the planned Four Corners exit in 2024. PNM cannot predict the full impact of the ETA or the outcome of its pending and potential future generating resource abandonment and replacement resource filings with the NMPRC. See additional discussion in Note 12 of PNM’s SJGS and Four Corners Abandonment Applications. The Clean Air Act Regional Haze In 1999, EPA developed a regional haze program and regional haze rules under the CAA. The rule directs each of the 50 states to address regional haze. Pursuant to the CAA, states are required to establish goals for improving visibility in national parks and wilderness areas (also known as Class I areas) and to develop long-term strategies for reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause visibility impairment in their own states and for preventing degradation in other states. States must establish a series of interim goals to ensure continued progress by adopting a new SIP every ten years. In the first SIP planning period, states were required to conduct BART determinations for certain covered facilities, including utility boilers, built between 1962 and 1977 that have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of visibility impairing pollution. If it was demonstrated that the emissions from these sources caused or contributed to visibility impairment in any Class I area, BART must have been installed by the beginning of 2018. For all future SIP planning periods, states must evaluate whether additional emissions reduction measures may be needed to continue making reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions. In 2017, EPA published revisions to the regional haze rule in the Federal Register. The new rule delayed the due date for the next cycle of SIPs from 2019 to 2021, altered the planning process that states must employ in determining whether to impose “reasonable progress” emission reduction measures, and gave new authority to federal land managers to seek additional emission reduction measures outside of the states’ planning process. Finally, the rule made several procedural changes to the regional haze program, including changes to the schedule and process for states to file 5-year progress reports. EPA’s new rule was challenged by numerous parties. On January 19, 2018, EPA filed a motion to hold the case in abeyance in light of several letters issued by EPA on January 17, 2018 to grant various petitions for reconsideration of the 2017 rule revisions. EPA’s decision to revisit the 2017 rule is not a determination on the merits of the issues raised in the petitions. On December 20, 2018, EPA released a new guidance document on tracking visibility progress for the second planning period. EPA is allowing states discretion to develop SIPs that may differ from EPA’s guidance as long as they are consistent with the CAA and other applicable regulations. On August 20, 2019, EPA finalized the draft guidance that was previously released as a companion to the regional haze rule revisions, and EPA clarified that guidance in a memorandum issued on July 8, 2021. SIPs for the second planning period were due in July 2021, which deadline NMED was unable to meet. NMED is currently preparing its SIP for the second compliance period and has notified PNM that it will not be required to submit a regional haze four-factor analysis for SJGS since PNM will retire its share of SJGS in 2022. On April 7, 2022, EPA announced its intent to make findings by August 31, 2022 of the states that have failed to submit regional haze implementation plans for the second planning period and directed states to file their plans by August 15, 2022 to avoid inclusion in that finding. Despite that announcement, on April 13, 2022, four environmental groups sued EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to compel EPA to issue a finding that 34 states failed to submit regional haze SIPs for the second planning period. NMED’s current timeline indicates the proposed SIP will be submitted between July 2022 and January 2023. Carbon Dioxide Emissions On August 3, 2015, EPA established standards to limit CO2 emissions from power plants, including (1) Carbon Pollution Standards for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants; and (2) the Clean Power Plan for existing power plants. Multiple states, utilities and trade groups filed petitions for review in the DC Circuit to challenge both the Carbon Pollution Standards for new sources and the Clean Power Plan for existing sources in separate cases. Challengers successfully petitioned the US Supreme Court for a stay of the Clean Power Plan. However, before the DC Circuit could issue an opinion regarding either the Carbon Pollution Standards or the Clean Power Plan, the Trump Administration asked that the case be held in abeyance while the rules were re-evaluated, which was granted. On June 19, 2019, EPA repealed the Clean Power Plan, promulgated the ACE Rule, and revised the implementing regulations for all emission guidelines. EPA set the Best System of Emissions Reduction ("BSER") for existing coal-fired power plants as heat rate efficiency improvements based on a range of "candidate technologies" that can be applied inside the fence-line of an individual facility. On September 17, 2019, the DC Circuit issued an order that granted motions by various petitioners, including industry groups and EPA, to dismiss the cases challenging the Clean Power Plan as moot due to EPA’s issuance of the ACE Rule. The ACE Rule was also challenged, and on January 19, 2021, the DC Circuit issued an opinion in American Lung Association and American Public Health Association v. EPA, et al., finding that EPA misinterpreted the CAA when it determined that the language of Section 111 unambiguously barred consideration of emissions reduction options that were not applied at the source. As a result, the court vacated the ACE Rule and remanded the record back to the EPA for further consideration consistent with the court's opinion. While the DC Circuit rejected the ACE Rule, it did not reinstate the Clean Power Plan. EPA filed a motion seeking a partial stay of the mandate as to the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, to ensure the court’s order will not render effective the now out-of-date Clean Power Plan. On February 22, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit granted EPA’s motion, indicating that it would withhold issuance of the mandate with respect to the repeal of the Clean Power Plan until EPA responds to the court’s remand in a new rulemaking action. EPA has commenced the rulemaking process under section 111 to establish new emission guidelines for CO2 emissions from existing power plants. The agency indicates that it plans to publish the draft rule in the summer of 2022 with a final rule in summer of 2023. Four petitions for writ of certiorari were filed in the US Supreme Court seeking review of the DC Circuit’s January opinion vacating the ACE Rule and the repeal of the Clean Power Plan. The petitioners include (1) West Virginia and 18 other states that had intervened to defend the ACE Rule, (2) North American Coal Corporation, (3) North Dakota (separately from the other states), and (4) Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC. On October 29, 2021, the US Supreme Court granted the four petitions for writs of certiorari. Oral arguments in the US Supreme Court were held on February 28, 2022. A decision is expected by the end of June 2022. The litigation over the Carbon Pollution Standards remains held in abeyance but could be reactivated by the parties upon a determination by the court that the Biden Administration is unlikely to finalize the revisions proposed in 2018 and that reconsideration of the rule has concluded. On January 27, 2021, President Biden signed an extensive Executive Order aimed at addressing climate change concerns domestically and internationally. The order is intended to build on the initial climate-related actions the Biden Administration took on January 20, 2021. It addresses a wide range of issues, including establishing climate change concerns as an essential element of U.S. foreign and security policy, identifying a process to determine the U.S. INDC under the Paris Agreement, and establishing a Special Presidential Envoy for Climate that will sit on the National Security Council. On April 22, 2021, at the Earth Day Summit, as part of the U.S.’s re-entry into the Paris Agreement, President Biden unveiled the goal to cut U.S. emissions by 50% - 52% from 2005 levels by 2030, nearly double the GHG emissions reduction target set by the Obama Administration. The 2030 goal joins President Biden’s other climate goals which include a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 and a net-zero emissions economy by no later than 2050. PNM’s review of the GHG emission reductions standards that may occur as a result of legislation or regulation under the Biden Administration and in response to the court's ruling on the ACE Rule is ongoing. PNM cannot predict the impact these standards may have on its operations or a range of the potential costs of compliance, if any. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) The CAA requires EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA has set NAAQS for certain pollutants, including NOx, SO2, ozone, and particulate matter. NOx Standard – On April 18, 2018, EPA published the final rule to retain the current primary health-based NOx standards of which NO2 is the constituent of greatest concern and is the indicator for the primary NAAQS. EPA concluded that the current 1-hour and annual primary NO2 standards are requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. The rule became effective on May 18, 2018. PNM maintains compliance with the current NOx NAAQS standards. SO2 Standard – On February 25, 2019, EPA announced its final decision to retain, without changes, the primary health-based NAAQS for SO2. Specifically, EPA will retain the current 1-hour standard for SO2, which is 75 parts per billion, based on the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations. PNM maintains compliance with the current SO2 NAAQS standards. On March 26, 2021, EPA published in the Federal Register the initial air quality designations for all remaining areas not yet designated under the 2010 SO2 Primary NAAQS. This is EPA’s fourth and final set of actions to designate areas of the U.S. for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. All areas of New Mexico have been designated attainment/unclassifiable through four rounds of designations by EPA. Ozone Standard – On October 1, 2015, EPA finalized the new ozone NAAQS and lowered both the primary and secondary 8-hour standard from 75 to 70 parts per billion. With ozone standards becoming more stringent, fossil-fueled generation units will come under increasing pressure to reduce emissions of NOx and volatile organic compounds since these are the pollutants that form ground-level ozone. On July 13, 2020, EPA proposed to retain the existing ozone NAAQS based on a review of the full body of currently available scientific evidence and exposure/risk information. EPA finalized its decision to retain the ozone NAAQS in a notice published on December 31, 2020 making it immediately effective. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit on February 25, 2021, challenging the decision to retain the existing ozone standard. In response to lawsuits brought by states and environmental groups, on October 29, 2021, EPA filed a motion in the DC Circuit indicating it will reconsider the 2020 ozone NAAQS standard. EPA expects to complete this review by the end of 2023. On November 10, 2015, EPA proposed a rule revising its Exceptional Events Rule, which outlines the requirements for excluding air quality data (including ozone data) from regulatory decisions if the data is affected by events outside an area’s control. The proposed rule is important in light of the more stringent ozone NAAQS final rule since western states like New Mexico and Arizona are subject to elevated background ozone transport from natural local sources, such as wildfires and stratospheric inversions, and transported via winds from distant sources in other regions or countries. EPA finalized the rule on October 3, 2016 and released related guidance in 2018 and 2019 to help implement its new exceptional events policy. During 2017 and 2018, EPA released rules establishing area designations for ozone. In those rules, San Juan County, New Mexico, where SJGS and Four Corners are located, is designated as attainment/unclassifiable and only a small area in Doña Ana County, New Mexico is designated as marginal non-attainment. Although Afton is located in Doña Ana County, it is not located within the small area designated as non-attainment for the 2015 ozone standard. The rule became effective May 8, 2018. On November 22, 2019, EPA issued findings that several states, including New Mexico, had failed to submit interstate transport SIPs for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In response, in December 2019, NMED published the Public Review Draft of the New Mexico 2013 NAAQS Good Neighbor SIP that demonstrates that there are no significant contributions from New Mexico to downwind problems in meeting the federal ozone standard. NMED has responsibility for bringing the small area in Doña Ana County designated as marginal/non-attainment for ozone into compliance and will look at all sources of NOx and volatile organic compounds. NMED has submitted the required elements for the Sunland Park Ozone Non-attainment Area SIP. This includes a transportation conformity demonstration, a 2017 baseline emissions inventory and emissions statement, and an amendment to the state's Non-attainment Permitting rules at 20.2.79 New Mexico Administrative Code to conform to EPA's SIP Requirements Rule for 2015 Q3 NAAQS (i.e., "implementation rule"). The SIP elements had staggered deadlines and were done in three submissions: (1) the transportation conformity demonstration was completed by the El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization on behalf of New Mexico in 2019, which is responsible for transportation planning in that area, and the submission received concurrence from EPA and the Federal Highway Administration; (2) the emissions inventory and statement SIP was submitted to EPA in September 2020; and (3) the Non-attainment New Source Review SIP was submitted to EPA on August 10, 2021. PNM does not believe there will be material impacts to its facilities because of NMED’s non-attainment designation of the small area within Doña Ana County. Until EPA approves attainment designations for the Navajo Nation and releases a proposal to implement the revised ozone NAAQS, PNM is unable to predict what impact the adoption of these standards may have on Four Corners. With respect to EPA's reconsideration of the 2020 decision to retain the 2015 ozone standards, PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter. PM Standard – On January 30, 2020, EPA published in the Federal Register a notice announcing the availability of a final Policy Assessment for the Review of the NAAQS for Particulate Matter (the "Final PA"). The final assessment was prepared as part of the review of the primary and secondary PM NAAQS. In the assessment, EPA recommended lowering the primary annual PM 2.5 standard to between 8 µg/m3 and 10 µg/m3. However, on April 30, 2020, EPA published a proposed rule to retain the current standards for PM due to uncertainties in the data relied upon in the Final PA. EPA accepted comments on the proposed rule through June 29, 2020. On December 7, 2020, EPA announced it will retain, without revision, the existing primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for PM, and EPA published a notice of that final action on December 18, 2020, making it immediately effective. On January 14, 2021, several states and New York City filed a petition for review in the DC Circuit, challenging EPA’s final rule retaining the current primary and secondary PM NAAQS. On February 9, 2021, a similar lawsuit was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity in the DC Circuit. On June 10, 2021, EPA announced that it will reconsider the previous administration’s December 2020 decision to retain the current primary and secondary PM NAAQS and on October 8, 2021, EPA announced the release of a new draft policy assessment (the "Draft PA"). Like the Final PA, the Draft PA states that available scientific evidence and technical information indicate that the current standards may not be adequate to protect public health and welfare, as required by the Clean Air Act. EPA anticipates issuing a proposed rule in summer 2022 and a final rule in spring 2023. PNM maintains compliance with the current PM NAAQS standards and cannot predict the impacts of the outcome of future rulemaking. Cooling Water Intake Structures In 2014, EPA issued a rule establishing national standards for certain cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and other facilities under the Clean Water Act to protect fish and other aquatic organisms by minimizing impingement mortality (the capture of aquatic wildlife on intake structures or against screens) and entrainment mortality (the capture of fish or shellfish in water flow entering and passing through intake structures). To minimize impingement mortality, the rule provides operators of facilities, such as SJGS and Four Corners, seven options for meeting Best Technology Available (“BTA”) standards for reducing impingement. SJGS has a closed-cycle recirculating cooling system, which is a listed BTA and may also qualify for the “de minimis rate of impingement” based on the design of the intake structure. The permitting authority must establish the BTA for entrainment on a site-specific basis, taking into consideration an array of factors, including endangered species and social costs and benefits. Affected sources must submit source water baseline characterization data to the permitting authority to assist in the determination. Compliance deadlines under the rule are tied to permit renewal and will be subject to a schedule of compliance established by the permitting authority. The rule is not clear as to how it applies and what the compliance timelines are for facilities like SJGS that have a cooling water intake structure and only a multi-sector general stormwater permit. However, EPA has indicated that it is contemplating a December 31, 2023 compliance deadline. PNM is working with EPA regarding this issue and does not expect material changes as a result of any requirements that may be imposed upon SJGS, particularly given the planned retirement of SJGS in 2022. On May 23, 2018, several environmental groups sued EPA Region IX in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court over EPA’s failure to timely reissue the Four Corners NPDES permit. The petitioners asked the court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling EPA Region IX to take final action on the pending NPDES permit by a reasonable date. EPA subsequently reissued the NPDES permit on June 12, 2018. The permit did not contain conditions related to the cooling water intake structure rule, as EPA determined that the facility has achieved BTA for both impingement and entrainment by operating a closed-cycle recirculation system. On July 16, 2018, several environmental groups filed a petition for review with EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board ("EAB") concerning the reissued permit. The environmental groups alleged that the permit was reissued in contravention of several requirements under the Clean Water Act and did not contain required provisions concerning certain revised ELG, existing-source regulations governing cooling-water intake structures, and effluent limits for surface seepage and subsurface discharges from coal-ash disposal facilities. On December 19, 2018, EPA withdrew the Four Corners NPDES permit in order to examine issues raised by the environmental groups. Withdrawal of the permit moots the appeal pending before the EAB. EAB thereafter dismissed the environmental groups’ appeal. EPA issued an updated NPDES permit on September 30, 2019. The permit was once again appealed to the EAB and was stayed before the effective date. Oral argument was heard on September 3, 2020. The EAB issued an order denying the petition for review on September 30, 2020. The denial was based on the EAB's determination that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that review of the permit was warranted on any of the grounds presented in the petition. Thereafter, the Regional Administrator of the EPA signed a Notice of Final Permit Decision, and the NPDES permit was issued on November 9, 2020. The permit became effective December 1, 2020 and will expire on November 30, 2025. On January 22, 2021, the environmental groups filed a petition for review of the EAB's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The September 2019 permit remains in effect pending this appeal. On March 21, 2022, EPA provided notice in the Federal Register of a proposed settlement agreement with the environmental groups. Under the proposed settlement, the parties would seek to stay the associated case for at least 15 months during which a third-party consultant would spend 12 months sampling discharges from Four Corners and EPA would spend three months completing an analysis. Comments on the proposed settlement were due by April 20, 2022. PNM cannot predict whether the parties will ultimately sign the settlement agreement or whether the analysis to be conducted under the settlement agreement will result in changes to the NPDES permit that will have a material impact on PNM’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Effluent Limitation Guidelines On June 7, 2013, EPA published proposed revised wastewater ELG establishing technology-based wastewater discharge limitations for fossil fuel-fired electric power plants. EPA signed the final Steam Electric ELG rule on September 30, 2015. The final rule, which became effective on January 4, 2016, phased in the new, more stringent requirements in the form of effluent limits for arsenic, mercury, selenium, and nitrogen for wastewater discharged from wet scrubber systems and zero discharge of pollutants in ash transport water that must be incorporated into plants’ NPDES permits. The 2015 rule required each plant to comply between 2018 and 2023 depending on when it needs a new or revised NPDES permit. The Steam Electric ELG rule was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by numerous parties. On April 12, 2017, EPA signed a notice indicating its intent to reconsider portions of the rule, and on August 22, 2017, the Fifth Circuit issued an order severing the issues under reconsideration and holding the case in abeyance as to those issues. However, the court allowed challenges to other portions of the rule to proceed. On April 12, 2019, the Fifth Circuit granted those challenges and issued an opinion vacating several portions of the rule, specifically those related to legacy wastewater and leachate, for which the court deemed the standards selected by EPA arbitrary and capricious. On September 18, 2017, EPA published a final rule for postponement of certain compliance dates. The rule postponed the earliest date on which compliance with the ELG for these waste streams would be required from November 1, 2018 until November 1, 2020. On November 22, 2019, EPA published a proposed rule revising the original ELG while maintaining the compliance dates. Comments were due January 21, 2020. On October 13, 2020, EPA published in the Federal Register the final Steam Electric ELG and standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, revising the final 2015 guidelines for both flue gas desulfurization wastewater and bottom ash transport water. The rule will require compliance with new limits as soon as possible on or after October 13, 2021, but no later than December 31, 2025. On August 3, 2021, EPA published notice that it will undertake a supplemental rulemaking to revise the ELG after completing its review of the 2020 Reconsideration Rule. As part of this process, EPA will determine whether more stringent limitations and standards are appropriate. EPA intends to publish a proposed rule in the fall of 2022. Because SJGS is zero discharge for wastewater and is not required to hold a NPDES permit, it is expected that minimal to no requirements will be imposed. Reeves Station discharges cooling tower blowdown to a publicly owned treatment plant and holds an NPDES permit. It is expected that minimal to no requirements will be imposed at Reeves Station. See "Cooling Water Intake Structures" above for additional discussion of Four Corners' current NPDES permit. Four Corners may be required to change equipment and operating practices affecting boilers and ash handling systems, as well as change its waste disposal techniques during the next NPDES permit renewal in 2023. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of these matters or a range of the potential costs of compliance. Santa Fe Generating Station PNM and NMED are parties to agreements under which PNM has installed a remediation system to treat water from a City of Santa Fe municipal supply well and an extraction well to address gasoline contamination in the groundwater at the site of PNM’s former Santa Fe Generating Station and service center. A 2008 NMED site inspection report states that neither the source nor extent of contamination at the site has been determined and that the source may not be the former Santa Fe Generating Station. During 2013 and 2014, PNM and NMED collected additional samples that showed elevated concentrations of nitrate and volatile organic compounds in some of the monitoring wells at the site. In addition, one monitoring well contained free-phase hydrocarbon products. PNM collected a sample of the product for “fingerprint” analysis. The results of this analysis indicated the product was a mixture of older and newer fuels. The presence of newer fuels in the sample suggests the hydrocarbon product likely originated from off-site sources. In December 2015, PNM and NMED entered into a memorandum of understanding to address changing groundwater conditions at the site under which PNM agreed to continue hydrocarbon investigation under the supervision of NMED. Qualified costs are eligible for payment through the New Mexico Corrective Action Fund (“CAF”), which is administered by the NMED Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau. In March 2019, PNM received notice from NMED that an abatement plan for the site is required to address concentrations of previously identified compounds, unrelated to those discussed above, found in the groundwater. NMED approved PNM’s abatement plan proposal, which covers field work and reporting. Field work related to the investigation under both the CAF and abatement plan requirements was completed in October 2019. Activities and findings associated with the field work were presented in two separate reports and released to stakeholders in early 2020. Subsequent field work was completed in July 2020 and two reports were released supporting PNM’s contention that off-site sources have impacted, and are continuing to impact, the local groundwater in the vicinity of the former Santa Fe Generating Station. PNM submitted work plans to NMED in January 2021 for review and approval. In December 2021, NMED approved both workplans and work is underway. These activities are expected to be completed by the end of 2022. The City of Santa Fe has stopped operating its well at the site, which is needed for PNM’s groundwater remediation system to operate. As a result, PNM has stopped performing remediation activities at the site. However, PNM’s monitoring and other abatement activities at the site are ongoing and will continue until the groundwater meets applicable federal and state standards or until the NMED determines remediation is not required, whichever is earlier. PNM is not able to assess the duration of this project or estimate the impact on its obligations if PNM is required to resume groundwater remediation activities at the site. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of these matters. Coal Combustion Residuals Waste Disposal CCRs consisting of fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum generated from coal combustion and emission control equipment at SJGS are currently disposed of in the surface mine pits adjacent to the plant. SJGS does not operate any CCR impoundments or landfills. The NMMMD currently regulates mine reclamation activities at the San Juan mine, including placement of CCRs in the surface mine pits, with federal oversight by the OSM. APS disposes of CCRs in ponds and dry storage areas at Four Corners. Ash management at Four Corners is regulated by EPA and the New Mexico State Engineer’s Office. EPA’s final coal ash rule, which became effective on October 19, 2015, included a non-hazardous waste determination for coal ash and sets minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments. On December 16, 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (the “WIIN Act”) was signed into law to address critical water infrastructure needs in the U.S. and contains a number of provisions related to the CCR rules. Among other things, the WIIN Act allows, but does not require, states to develop and submit CCR permit programs for EPA approval, provides flexibility for states to incorporate EPA’s final rule for CCRs or develop other criteria that are at least as protective as EPA’s final rule, and requires EPA to approve state permit programs within 180 days of submission by the state. Because states are not required to implement their own CCR permit programs, EPA will implement the permit program in states that choose not to implement a program, subject to Congressional funding. Until permit programs are in effect, EPA has authority to directly enforce the CCR rule. For facilities located within the boundaries of Native American reservations, such as the Navajo Nation where Four Corners is located, EPA is required to develop a federal permit program regardless of appropriated funds. On July 30, 2018, EPA published a rule that constitutes “Phase One, Part One” of its ongoing reconsideration and revision of the April 17, 2015 CCR rule. The final Phase One, Part One rule includes two types of revisions. The first revision extended the deadline to allow EGUs with unlined impoundments or that fail to meet the uppermost aquifer requirement to continue to receive coal ash until October 31, 2020. This deadline was again extended by subsequent amendments. The rule also authorized a “Participating State Director” or EPA to approve suspension of groundwater monitoring requirements and to issue certifications related to the location restrictions, design criteria, groundwater monitoring, remedy selection and implementation. The rule also modified groundwater protection standards for certain constituents, which include cobalt, molybdenum, lithium, and lead without a maximum contamination level. On August 14, 2019, EPA published a second round of revisions, which are commonly referred to as the “Phase Two” revisions. Phase Two proposed revisions to reporting and accessibility to public information, the "CCR piles" and "beneficial use" definitions and the requirements for management of CCR piles. EPA has reopened and extended the Phase Two comment period several times. Most recently, on March 12, 2021, EPA reopened the comment period on its prior notice that announced the availability of new information and data pertaining to the Phase Two proposed rule. EPA extended the comment period for an additional 60 days, until May 11, 2021. EPA has not yet finalized provisions in Phase Two related to beneficial use of CCR and CCR piles. This activity is on EPA's long-term agenda, which means EPA has no plans to address these issues in the next 12 months. Since promulgating its Phase Two proposal, EPA has finalized two other rules addressing various CCR rule provisions. On December 2, 2019, EPA promulgated its proposed Holistic Approach to Closure Part A ("Part A"), which proposed a new deadline of August 31, 2020, for companies to initiate closure of unlined CCR impoundments. In accordance with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals’ vacatur of portions of the CCR Rule, Part A also proposed changing the classification of compacted soil-lined or clay-lined surface impoundments from “lined” to “unlined”. In addition, Part A delineated a process for owners/operators to submit requests for alternative closure deadlines based on lack of alternate disposal capacity. EPA issued the final Part A on August 28, 2020, which became effective on September 28, 2020. This rule finalized the classification of soil-lined and clay-lined surface impoundments as unlined, thus, triggering closure or retrofit requirements for those impoundments. The final Part A also gave operators of unlined impoundments until April 11, 2021 to cease receipt of waste at these units and initiate closure. On March 3, 2020, EPA issued the proposed Holistic Approach to Closure Part B ("Part B"), which delineated the process for owners/operators to submit alternate liner demonstrations for clay-lined surface impoundments that could otherwise meet applicable requirements. Part B also proposed regulations addressing beneficial use for closure of surface impoundments. On November 12, 2020, EPA issued the final Part B rule, which became effective December 14, 2020. This rule did not include beneficial use of CCR for closure, which EPA explains will be addressed in subsequent rulemaking actions. EPA intends to issue several other rulemakings covering legacy ponds and finalizing parts of previously proposed rules. These proposed rules and final rules are expected in 2022. On February 20, 2020, EPA published a proposed rule establishing a federal permitting program for the handling of CCR within the boundaries of Native American reservations and in states without their own federally authorized state programs. Permits for units within the boundaries of Native American reservations would be due 18 months after the effective date of the rule. The final rule is expected in October 2022. EPA is coordinating with the affected permits for the three facilities with CCR disposal units located on Native American lands. PNM cannot predict the outcome of EPA’s rule making activity or the outcome of any related litigation, and whether or how such a ruling would affect operations at Four Corners. The CCR rule does not cover mine placement of coal ash. OSM is expected to publish a proposed rule covering mine placement in the future and will likely be influenced by EPA’s rule and the determination by EPA that CCRs are non-hazardous. PNM cannot predict the outcome of OSM’s proposed rulemaking regarding CCR regulation, including mine placement of CCRs, or whether OSM’s actions will have a material impact on PNM’s operations, financial position, or cash flows. Based upon the requirements of the final Part A CCR rule, PNM conducted a CCR assessment at SJGS and made minor modifications at the plant to ensure that there are no facilities that would be considered impoundments or landfills under the rule. PNM would seek recovery from its retail customers of all CCR costs for jurisdictional assets that are ultimately incurred. Utilities that own or operate CCR disposal units, such as those at Four Corners, as indicated above, were required to collect sufficient groundwater sampling data to initiate a detection monitoring program. Four Corners completed the analysis for its CCR disposal units, which identified several units that will need corrective action or will need to cease operations and initiate closure by April 11, 2021. As part of this assessment, Four Corners will continue to gather additional groundwater data and perform remedial evaluations. At this time, PNM does not anticipate its share of the cost to complete these corrective actions to close the CCR disposal units, or to gather and perform remedial evaluations on groundwater at Four Corners, will have a significant impact on its operations, financial position, or cash flows. Other Commitments and Contingencies Coal Supply SJGS The coal requirements for SJGS are supplied by WSJ LLC. In addition to coal delivered to meet the current needs of SJGS, PNM has prepaid the current San Juan mine owner and operator, WSJ LLC, for certain coal mined but not yet delivered to the plant site. At March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, prepayments for coal, which are included in prepaid assets, amounted to $10.0 million and $20.4 million. Additional information concerning the coal supply for SJGS is contained in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2021 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. In conjunction with the activities undertaken to comply with the CAA for SJGS, PNM and the other owners of SJGS evaluated alternatives for the supply of coal to SJGS. On July 1, 2015, PNM and Westmoreland entered into a new coal supply agreement (the “SJGS CSA”), pursuant to which Westmoreland, through its indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary SJCC, agreed to supply all of the coal requirements of SJGS through June 30, 2022. PNM and Westmoreland also entered into agreements under which CCR disposal and mine reclamation services for SJGS would be provided. As discussed in Note 6, WSJ LLC assumed the rights and obligations of SJCC under the SJGS CSA and the agreements for CCR disposal and mine reclamation services. Pricing under the SJGS CSA is primarily fixed, with adjustments to reflect changes in general inflation and takes into account that WSJ LLC has been paid for coal mined but not delivered. Substantially all of PNM's coal costs are passed through the FPPAC. In November 2018, PNM provided notice to Westmoreland that PNM does not intend to extend the term of the SJGS CSA or to negotiate a new coal supply agreement for SJGS, which would have resulted in the current agreement expiring on its own terms on June 30, 2022. On February 17, 2022, PNM and WSJ LLC entered into an amendment to extend the SJGS CSA through September 30, 2022, subject to FERC’s acceptance of amendments to the San Juan Project Participation Agreement. The CSA amendment provides for a fixed price increase of $5.00 per ton, beginning April 1, 2022, which would pass through the FPPAC. FERC accepted the amendments to the participation agreement on March 24, 2022. See additional discussion of PNM’s SJGS Abandonment Application in Note 12. WSJ LLC notified PNM in July 2021 that it had encountered unfavorable geologic conditions that were impeding longwall progress in the San Juan Mine. On August 17, 2021, WSJ LLC issued a formal notice of non-normal conditions due to WSJ LLC’s inability to maintain a reserve of coal at required levels. WSJ LLC also notified PNM that these geologic complications constituted a force majeure event that was preventing WSJ LLC from satisfying its obligation to maintain required coal inventory levels. Geologic conditions had reportedly improved, and on December 9, 2021, WSJ LLC gave formal notice that they were terminating the potential force majeure conditions. Subsequently, on April 14, 2022, WSJ LLC again notified PNM that they had encountered similar geologic conditions and once again issued formal notice of a force majeure event. PNM does not know whether reduced levels of coal inventory may continue until normal conditions recur in the longwall panel or whether the period of non-normal conditions will impact full load operations through the remainder of the CSA and PNM's projected system reserve margin for the 2022 summer peak. See additional discussion of PNM’s SJGS Abandonment Application in Note 12. The SJGS Restructuring Agreement sets forth terms under which PNM acquired the coal inventory, including coal mined but not delivered, of the exiting SJGS participants as of January 1, 2016, and supplied coal to the SJGS exiting participants for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017, and is supplying coal to the SJGS remaining participants over the term of the SJGS CSA. Coal costs under the SJGS CSA are significantly less than under the previous arrangement with SJCC. Since substantially all of PNM’s coal costs are passed through the FPPAC, the benefit of the reduced costs is passed through to PNM’s customers. In connection with certain mining permits relating to the operation of the San Juan mine, the San Juan mine owner was required to post reclamation bonds of $118.7 million with the NMMMD. In order to facilitate the posting of reclamation bonds by sureties on behalf of the San Juan mine owner, PNMR entered into the WFB LOC Facility under which letters of credit aggregating $30.3 million have been issued. As discussed in Note 6, on March 15, 2019, the assets owned by SJCC were sold to WSJ LLC, a subsidiary of Westmoreland Mining Holdings, LLC. Under the sale agreement, WSJ LLC assumed the rights and obligations of SJCC including obligations to PNMR under the outstanding letters of credit. Four Corners APS purchases all of Four Corners’ coal requirements from NTEC, an entity owned by the Navajo Nation, under the Four Corners CSA that expires in 2031. The coal comes from reserves located within the Navajo Nation. The contract provides for pricing adjustments over its term based on economic indices. PNM's share of the coal costs is being recovered through the FPPAC. In connection with the exit of Four Corners, PNM would make payments totaling $75.0 million to NTEC for relief from its obligations under the coal supply agreements for Four Corners after December 31, 2024. PNM is not proposing to recover the $75.0 million from ratepayers and, if approved, would not be recovered through the FPPAC. See Note 12 for additional information on PNM's Four Corners Abandonment Application. See additional discussion of the Four Corners CSA in Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2021 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. NTEC contracted with Bisti Fuels Company, LLC, a subsidiary of The North American Coal Corporation, for management and operation of the mine. Under the CSA, NTEC has the right, after a specified period, to request approval from the Four Corners owners to replace Bisti Fuels Company as mine manager with NTEC’s internal resources and perform all or some mine management functions. APS granted approval on behalf of the owners on June 16, 2021, subject to certain credit assurance requirements. On June 17, 2021, NTEC notified The North American Coal Corporation that the contract mining agreement between Bisti Fuels Company and NTEC is terminated effective September 30, 2021. NTEC assumed direct operations at Navajo Mine on October 1, 2021. Coal Mine Reclamation As indicated under Coal Combustion Residuals Waste Disposal above, SJGS currently disposes of CCRs in the surface mine pits adjacent to the plant and Four Corners disposes of CCRs in ponds and dry storage areas. As discussed in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2021 Annual Reports on Form 10-K, in conjunction with the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and to comply with the BART requirements of the CAA, periodic updates to the coal mine reclamation study were requested by the SJGS participants. These updates have included adjustments to reflect the December 2017 shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3, the terms of the reclamation services agreement with WSJ LLC, and changes to reflect the requirements of the 2015 San Juan mine permit plan. In late 2020, a mine reclamation cost study was completed for the mine that serves SJGS and in December 2020, PNM remeasured its liability, which resulted in an increase in the overall reclamation costs of $3.6 million, due primarily to higher inflationary factors. As a result, PNM recorded a less than $0.1 million decrease in the liability at December 31, 2020 related to the underground mine and a decrease to the regulatory assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and recorded a $3.6 million increase in the liability associated with the surface mine as regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings. PNM’s estimate of the costs necessary to reclaim the mine that serves SJGS is subject to many assumptions, including the timing of reclamation, generally accepted practices at the time reclamation activities occur, and then current inflation and discount rates. PNM cannot predict the ultimate cost to reclaim the mine that serves SJGS and would seek to recover all costs related to reclaiming the underground mine from its customers but could be exposed to additional loss related to surface mine reclamation. A coal mine reclamation study for the mine that serves Four Corners was issued in 2019. The study reflected operation of the mine through 2031, the term of the Four Corners CSA. The study resulted in a net increase in PNM’s share of the coal mine reclamation obligation of $0.8 million, which was primarily driven by lower overhead costs offset by an increase driven by a reduction in the discount rate used by PNM to measure the liability during the year ended December 31, 2019. As discussed in Note 12, PNM remains responsible for its share of costs associated with mine reclamation under the Four Corners Purchase and Sale Agreement with NTEC. NTEC and PNM will complete a reclamation study in 2024 providing the final mine reclamation cost estimate on the date of ownership transfer. PNM will make its final reclamation payment to NTEC based on the reclamation study in 2024 and will have no further obligations regarding the mine reclamation after 2024. PNM determined that events and circumstances regarding Four Corners, including the Four Corners Purchase and Sale Agreement with NTEC and the Four Corners Abandonment Application and subsequent appeal of the NMPRC decision, indicated that it is more likely than not that PNM’s share of Four Corners coal mine reclamation obligation would be settled in 2024, rather than 2031. As of December 31, 2020, PNM remeasured its Four Corners coal mine reclamation liability and recorded a decrease to the liability of $2.5 million on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and a decrease to regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Earnings. Based on the most recent estimates, PNM’s remaining payments as of March 31, 2022, for mine reclamation, in future dollars, are estimated to be $72.9 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $34.9 million for the underground mine at SJGS. At March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, liabilities, in current dollars, of $66.6 million and $67.4 million for surface mine reclamation and $28.3 million and $27.9 million for underground mine reclamation were recorded in other deferred credits. Under the terms of the SJGS CSA, PNM and the other SJGS owners are obligated to compensate WSJ LLC for all reclamation costs associated with the supply of coal from the San Juan mine. The SJGS owners entered into a reclamation trust funds agreement to provide funding to compensate WSJ LLC for post-term reclamation obligations. As discussed in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2021 Annual Reports on Form 10-K, as part of the restructuring of SJGS ownership, the SJGS owners negotiated the terms of an amended agreement to fund post-term reclamation obligations under the CSA. The trust funds agreement requires each owner to enter into an individual trust agreement with a financial institution as trustee, create an irrevocable reclamation trust, and periodically deposit funds into the reclamation trust for the owner’s share of the mine reclamation obligation. Deposits, which are based on funding curves, must be made on an annual basis. As part of the restructuring of SJGS ownership discussed above, the SJGS participants agreed to adjusted interim trust funding levels. PNM funded $5.2 million in 2021 and, based on PNM’s reclamation trust fund balance at March 31, 2022, the current funding curves indicate PNM’s required contributions to its reclamation trust fund would be $7.0 million in 2022 and zero in each of 2023 and 2024. Under the Four Corners CSA, PNM is required to fund its share of estimated final reclamation costs in annual installments into an irrevocable escrow account solely dedicated to the final reclamation cost of the surface mine at Four Corners. PNM contributed $2.2 million in 2021, and anticipates providing additional funding of $2.1 million in each of the years from 2022 through 2024. As discussed above, under the terms of the Four Corners Purchase and Sale Agreement with NTEC, PNM will make its final reclamation payment to NTEC based on the reclamation study in 2024 and will have no further obligations regarding the mine reclamation. PNM recovers from retail customers reclamation costs associated with the underground mine. However, the NMPRC has capped the amount that can be collected from retail customers for final reclamation of the surface mines at $100.0 million for both SJGS and Four Corners. If future estimates increase the liability for surface mine reclamation, the excess would be expensed at that time. The impacts of changes in New Mexico state law as a result of the enactment of the ETA and regulatory determinations made by the NMPRC may also affect PNM’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. See additional discussion regarding PNM’s SJGS and Four Corners Abandonment Applications in Note 12. PNM is currently unable to determine the outcome of these matters or the range of possible impacts. San Juan County Decommissioning Ordinance On November 9, 2021, the San Juan County Commission approved the Coal-Fired Electricity Generating Facility Demolition and Remediation Ordinance (“Ordinance 121”), requiring the full demolition of SJGS upon its complete and permanent closure. Ordinance 121 requires the SJGS owners to submit a proposed demolition and remediation plan no later than three months after SJGS is retired. In connection with restructuring of the SJGS ownership on December 31, 2017, PNM and the other SJGS owners entered into the San Juan Decommissioning and Trust Funds Agreement, which requires PNM to fund its ownership share of final decommissioning costs into an irrevocable trust. Under the agreement, PNM is required to make an initial funding of $14.7 million by December 31, 2022. The amount and timing of additional trust funding is subject to revised decommissioning cost studies, a decision by the current owners to permanently retire SJGS and agreement among the SJGS owners. PNM has posted a surety bond in the amount of $46.0 million in connection with certain environmental decommissioning obligations and must maintain the bond or other financial assurance until those obligations are satisfied. The surety bond only represents a liability if PNM fails to deliver on its contractual liability. For information regarding the impact of Ordinance 121 on PNM’s SJGS decommissioning ARO see Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2021 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. PVNGS Liability and Insurance Matters Public liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both commercial sources and an industry-wide retrospective payment plan. In accordance with this act, the PVNGS participants are insured against public liability exposure for a nuclear incident up to $13.5 billion per occurrence. PVNGS maintains the maximum available nuclear liability insurance in the amount of $450 million, which is provided by American Nuclear Insurers. The remaining $13.1 billion is provided through a mandatory industry-wide retrospective assessment program. If losses at any nuclear power plant covered by the program exceed the accumulated funds, PNM could be assessed retrospective premium adjustments. Based on PNM’s 10.2% interest in each of the three PVNGS units, PNM’s maximum potential retrospective premium assessment per incident for all three units is $42.1 million, with a maximum annual payment limitation of $6.2 million, to be adjusted periodically for inflation. The PVNGS participants maintain insurance for damage to, and decontamination of, property at PVNGS in the aggregate amount of $2.8 billion, a substantial portion of which must first be applied to stabilization and decontamination. These coverages are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (“NEIL”). The primary policy offered by NEIL contains a sublimit of $2.25 billion for non-nuclear property damage. If NEIL’s losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, PNM is subject to retrospective premium adjustments of $5.4 million for each retrospective premium assessment declared by NEIL’s Board of Directors due to losses. The insurance coverages discussed in this and the previous paragraph are subject to certain policy conditions, sublimits, and exclusions. Navajo Nation Allottee Matters In September 2012, 43 landowners filed a notice of appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) appealing a March 2011 decision of the BIA Regional Director regarding renewal of a right-of-way for a PNM transmission line. The landowners claim to be allottees, members of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation and allege that PNM is a rights-of-way grantee with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of rights-of-way or both. The allottees generally allege that they were not paid fair market value for the right-of-way, that they were denied the opportunity to make a showing as to their view of fair market value, and thus denied due process. The allottees filed a motion to dismiss their appeal with prejudice, which was granted in April 2014. Subsequent to the dismissal, PNM received a letter from counsel on behalf of what appears to be a subset of the 43 landowner allottees involved in the appeal, notifying PNM that the specified allottees were revoking their consents for renewal of right of way on six specific allotments. On January 22, 2015, PNM received a letter from the BIA Regional Director identifying ten allotments with rights-of-way renewals that were previously contested. The letter indicated that the renewals were not approved by the BIA because the previous consent obtained by PNM was later revoked, prior to BIA approval, by the majority owners of the allotments. It is the BIA Regional Director’s position that PNM must re-obtain consent from these landowners. On July 13, 2015, PNM filed a condemnation action in the NM District Court regarding the approximately 15.49 acres of land at issue. On September 18, 2015, the allottees filed a separate complaint against PNM for federal trespass. On December 1, 2015, the court ruled that PNM could not condemn two of the five allotments at issue based on the Navajo Nation’s fractional interest in the land. PNM filed a motion for reconsideration of this ruling, which was denied. On March 31, 2016, the Tenth Circuit granted PNM’s petition to appeal the December 1, 2015 ruling. Both matters have been consolidated. Oral argument before the Tenth Circuit was heard on January 17, 2017. On May 26, 2017, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. On July 8, 2017, PNM filed a Motion for Reconsideration en banc with the Tenth Circuit, which was denied. The NM District Court stayed the case based on the Navajo Nation’s acquisition of interests in two additional allotments and the unresolved ownership of the fifth allotment due to the owner’s death. On November 20, 2017, PNM filed its petition for writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court, which was denied. The underlying litigation continues in the NM District Court. On March 27, 2019, several individual allottees filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of trespass. The Court held a hearing on the motion on June 18, 2019 and took the motion under advisement. PNM, the allottees and the United States have agreed to a framework for settlement. The parties are preparing the settlement agreement and the stipulated court order. PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters. Texas Winter Storm In mid-February 2021, Texas experienced a severe winter storm delivering the coldest temperatures in 100 years for many parts of the state. As a result, the ERCOT market was not able to deliver sufficient generation load to the grid resulting in significant, statewide outages as ERCOT directed transmission operators to curtail thousands of firm load megawatts. TNMP complied with ERCOT directives to curtail the delivery of electricity in its service territory and did not experience significant outages on its system outside of the ERCOT directed curtailments. Various regulatory and governmental entities are conducting, or have announced they may conduct, inquiries, investigations and other reviews of the Texas winter storm event. Entities that have announced that they plan to conduct or are conducting such inquiries, investigations and other reviews include FERC, NERC, Texas Reliability Entity Inc., ERCOT, the Texas Legislature, the Texas Attorney General, the PUCT, and the Galveston County District Attorney. Further, lawsuits have been filed against various market participants relating to the power outages resulting from the Texas winter storm, including TNMP. As a utility operating during the Texas winter storm event, there is a risk TNMP could be named in additional lawsuits in the future. TNMP intends to vigorously defend itself against any claims raised. TNMP deferred bad debt expense from defaulting REPs to a regulatory asset which totaled $0.8 million at both March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, and will seek recovery in a general rate case. At this time, the Company does not expect significant financial impacts related to this event, however, it cannot predict the outcome of such matters or the impact on the ERCOT market.

There are various claims and lawsuits pending against the Company. In addition, the Company is subject to federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations and periodically participates in the investigation and remediation of various sites. In addition, the Company periodically enters into financial commitments in connection with its business operations. Also, the Company is involved in various legal and regulatory proceedings in the normal course of its business. See Note 12. It is not possible at this time for the Company to determine fully the effect of all litigation and other legal and regulatory proceedings on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

With respect to some of the items listed below, the Company has determined that a loss is not probable or that, to the extent probable, cannot be reasonably estimated. In some cases, the Company is not able to predict with any degree of certainty the range of possible loss that could be incurred. The Company assesses legal and regulatory matters based on current information and makes judgments concerning their potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of any damages sought, and the probability of success. Such judgments are made with the understanding that the outcome of any litigation, investigation, or other legal proceeding is inherently uncertain. The Company records liabilities for matters where it is probable a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable. The actual outcomes of the items listed below could ultimately differ from the judgments made and the differences could be material. The Company cannot make any assurances that the amount of reserves or potential insurance coverage will be sufficient to cover the cash obligations that might be incurred as a result of litigation or regulatory proceedings. Except as otherwise disclosed, the Company does not expect that any known lawsuits, environmental costs, and commitments will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Nuclear power plant operators are required to enter into spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE that require the DOE to accept and dispose of all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes generated by domestic power reactors. Although the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required the DOE to develop a permanent repository for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel by 1998, the DOE announced that it would not be able to open the repository by 1998 and sought to excuse its performance of these requirements. In November 1997, the DC Circuit issued a decision preventing the DOE from excusing its own delay but refused to order the DOE to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel. Based on this decision and the DOE’s delay, a number of utilities, including APS (on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS owners, including PNM), filed damages actions against the DOE in the Court of Federal Claims. The lawsuits filed by APS alleged that damages were incurred due to DOE’s continuing failure to remove spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste from PVNGS. In August 2014, APS and the DOE entered into a settlement agreement that establishes a process for the payment of claims for costs incurred through December 31, 2019. In July 2020, APS accepted the DOE's extension of the settlement agreement for recovery of costs incurred through December 31, 2022. Under the settlement agreement, APS must submit claims annually for payment of allowable costs. PNM records estimated claims on a quarterly basis. The benefit from the claims is passed through to customers under the FPPAC to the extent applicable to NMPRC regulated operations.

In 2019, the Governor signed into New Mexico state law Senate Bill 489, known as the Energy Transition Act (“ETA”). The ETA became effective as of June 14, 2019 and sets a statewide standard that requires investor-owned electric utilities to have specified percentages of their electric-generating portfolios be from renewable and zero-carbon generating resources. The ETA amends the REA and requires utilities operating in New Mexico to have renewable portfolios equal to 40% by 2025, 50% by 2030, 80% by 2040, and 100% zero-carbon energy by 2045. The ETA also amends sections of the REA to allow for the recovery of undepreciated investments and decommissioning costs related to qualifying EGUs that the NMPRC has required be removed from retail jurisdictional rates, provided replacement resources to be included in retail rates have lower or zero-carbon emissions. The ETA requires the NMPRC to review and approve utilities’ annual renewable portfolio plans to ensure compliance with the RPS. The ETA also directs the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board to adopt standards of performance that limit CO2 emissions to no more than 1,100 lbs. per MWh beginning January 1, 2023 for new or existing coal-fired EGUs with original installed capacities exceeding 300 MW.

The ETA provides for a transition from fossil-fuel generation resources to renewable and other carbon-free resources through certain provisions relating to the abandonment of coal-fired generating facilities. These provisions include the use of energy transition bonds, which are designed to be highly rated bonds that can be issued to finance certain costs of abandoning coal-fired facilities that are retired prior to January 1, 2023 for facilities operated by a “qualifying utility,” or prior to January 1, 2032 for facilities that are not operated by a qualifying utility. The amount of energy transition bonds that can be issued to recover abandonment costs is limited to the lesser of $375.0 million or 150% of the undepreciated investment of the facility as of the abandonment date. Proceeds provided by energy transition bonds must be used only for purposes related to providing utility service to customers and to pay energy transition costs (as defined by the ETA). These costs may include plant decommissioning and coal mine reclamation costs provided those costs have not previously been recovered from customers or disallowed by the NMPRC or by a court order. Proceeds from energy transition bonds may also be used to fund severances for employees of the retired facility and related coal mine and to promote economic development, education and job training in areas impacted by the retirement of the coal-fired facilities. Energy transition bonds must be issued under a NMPRC-approved financing order, are secured by “energy transition property,” are non-recourse to the issuing utility, and repaid by a non-bypassable charge paid by all customers of the issuing utility. These customer charges are subject to an adjustment mechanism designed to provide for timely and complete payment of principal and interest due under the energy transition bonds.

The ETA also provides that utilities must obtain NMPRC approval of competitively procured replacement resources that shall be evaluated based on their cost, economic development opportunity, ability to provide jobs with comparable pay and benefits to those lost upon retirement of the facility, and that do not exceed emissions thresholds specified in the ETA. In determining whether to approve replacement resources, the NMPRC must give preference to resources with the least environmental impacts, those with higher ratios of capital costs to fuel costs, and those located in the school district of the abandoned facility. The ETA also provides for the procurement of energy storage facilities and gives utilities discretion to maintain, control, and operate these systems to ensure reliable and efficient service.

In 1999, EPA developed a regional haze program and regional haze rules under the CAA. The rule directs each of the 50 states to address regional haze. Pursuant to the CAA, states are required to establish goals for improving visibility in national parks and wilderness areas (also known as Class I areas) and to develop long-term strategies for reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause visibility impairment in their own states and for preventing degradation in other states. States must establish a series of interim goals to ensure continued progress by adopting a new SIP every ten years. In the first SIP planning period, states were required to conduct BART determinations for certain covered facilities, including utility boilers, built between 1962 and 1977 that have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of visibility impairing pollution. If it was

In 2017, EPA published revisions to the regional haze rule in the Federal Register. The new rule delayed the due date for the next cycle of SIPs from 2019 to 2021, altered the planning process that states must employ in determining whether to impose “reasonable progress” emission reduction measures, and gave new authority to federal land managers to seek additional emission reduction measures outside of the states’ planning process. Finally, the rule made several procedural changes to the regional haze program, including changes to the schedule and process for states to file 5-year progress reports. EPA’s new rule was challenged by numerous parties. On January 19, 2018, EPA filed a motion to hold the case in abeyance in light of several letters issued by EPA on January 17, 2018 to grant various petitions for reconsideration of the 2017 rule revisions. EPA’s decision to revisit the 2017 rule is not a determination on the merits of the issues raised in the petitions.

On December 20, 2018, EPA released a new guidance document on tracking visibility progress for the second planning period. EPA is allowing states discretion to develop SIPs that may differ from EPA’s guidance as long as they are consistent with the CAA and other applicable regulations. On August 20, 2019, EPA finalized the draft guidance that was previously released as a companion to the regional haze rule revisions, and EPA clarified that guidance in a memorandum issued on July 8, 2021. SIPs for the second planning period were due in July 2021, which deadline NMED was unable to meet. NMED is currently preparing its SIP for the second compliance period and has notified PNM that it will not be required to submit a regional haze four-factor analysis for SJGS since PNM will retire its share of SJGS in 2022. On April 7, 2022, EPA announced its intent to make findings by August 31, 2022 of the states that have failed to submit regional haze implementation plans for the second planning period and directed states to file their plans by August 15, 2022 to avoid inclusion in that finding. Despite that announcement, on April 13, 2022, four environmental groups sued EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to compel EPA to issue a finding that 34 states failed to submit regional haze SIPs for the second planning period. NMED’s current timeline indicates the proposed SIP will be submitted between July 2022 and January 2023.

On June 19, 2019, EPA repealed the Clean Power Plan, promulgated the ACE Rule, and revised the implementing regulations for all emission guidelines. EPA set the Best System of Emissions Reduction ("BSER") for existing coal-fired power plants as heat rate efficiency improvements based on a range of "candidate technologies" that can be applied inside the fence-line of an individual facility. On September 17, 2019, the DC Circuit issued an order that granted motions by various petitioners, including industry groups and EPA, to dismiss the cases challenging the Clean Power Plan as moot due to EPA’s issuance of the ACE Rule.

The ACE Rule was also challenged, and on January 19, 2021, the DC Circuit issued an opinion in American Lung Association and American Public Health Association v. EPA, et al., finding that EPA misinterpreted the CAA when it determined that the language of Section 111 unambiguously barred consideration of emissions reduction options that were not applied at the source. As a result, the court vacated the ACE Rule and remanded the record back to the EPA for further consideration consistent with the court's opinion. While the DC Circuit rejected the ACE Rule, it did not reinstate the Clean Power Plan. EPA filed a motion seeking a partial stay of the mandate as to the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, to ensure the court’s order will not render effective the now out-of-date Clean Power Plan. On February 22, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit granted EPA’s motion, indicating that it would withhold issuance of the mandate with respect to the repeal of the Clean Power Plan until EPA responds to the court’s remand in a new rulemaking action. EPA has commenced the rulemaking process under section 111 to establish new emission guidelines for CO2 emissions from existing power plants. The agency indicates that it plans to publish the draft rule in the summer of 2022 with a final rule in summer of 2023.

On January 27, 2021, President Biden signed an extensive Executive Order aimed at addressing climate change concerns domestically and internationally. The order is intended to build on the initial climate-related actions the Biden Administration took on January 20, 2021. It addresses a wide range of issues, including establishing climate change concerns as an essential element of U.S. foreign and security policy, identifying a process to determine the U.S. INDC under the Paris Agreement, and establishing a Special Presidential Envoy for Climate that will sit on the National Security Council. On April 22, 2021, at the Earth Day Summit, as part of the U.S.’s re-entry into the Paris Agreement, President Biden unveiled the goal to cut U.S. emissions by 50% - 52% from 2005 levels by 2030, nearly double the GHG emissions reduction target set by the Obama Administration. The 2030 goal joins President Biden’s other climate goals which include a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 and a net-zero emissions economy by no later than 2050.

Ozone Standard – On October 1, 2015, EPA finalized the new ozone NAAQS and lowered both the primary and secondary 8-hour standard from 75 to 70 parts per billion. With ozone standards becoming more stringent, fossil-fueled generation units will come under increasing pressure to reduce emissions of NOx and volatile organic compounds since these are the pollutants that form ground-level ozone. On July 13, 2020, EPA proposed to retain the existing ozone NAAQS based on a review of the full body of currently available scientific evidence and exposure/risk information. EPA finalized its decision to retain the ozone NAAQS in a notice published on December 31, 2020 making it immediately effective. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit on February 25, 2021, challenging the decision to retain the existing ozone standard. In response to lawsuits brought by states and environmental groups, on October 29, 2021, EPA filed a motion in the DC Circuit indicating it will reconsider the 2020 ozone NAAQS standard. EPA expects to complete this review by the end of 2023.

PM Standard – On January 30, 2020, EPA published in the Federal Register a notice announcing the availability of a final Policy Assessment for the Review of the NAAQS for Particulate Matter (the "Final PA"). The final assessment was prepared as part of the review of the primary and secondary PM NAAQS. In the assessment, EPA recommended lowering the primary annual PM 2.5 standard to between 8 µg/m3 and 10 µg/m3. However, on April 30, 2020, EPA published a proposed rule to retain the current standards for PM due to uncertainties in the data relied upon in the Final PA. EPA accepted comments on the proposed rule through June 29, 2020. On December 7, 2020, EPA announced it will retain, without revision, the existing primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for PM, and EPA published a notice of that final action on December 18, 2020, making it immediately effective. On January 14, 2021, several states and New York City filed a petition for review in the DC Circuit, challenging EPA’s final rule retaining the current primary and secondary PM NAAQS. On February 9, 2021, a similar lawsuit was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity in the DC Circuit. On June 10, 2021, EPA announced that it will reconsider the previous administration’s December 2020 decision to retain the current primary and secondary PM NAAQS and on October 8, 2021, EPA announced the release of a new draft policy assessment (the "Draft PA"). Like the Final PA, the Draft PA states that available scientific evidence and technical information indicate that the current standards may not be adequate to protect public health and welfare, as required by the Clean Air Act. EPA anticipates issuing a proposed rule in summer 2022 and a final rule in spring 2023. PNM maintains compliance with the current PM NAAQS standards and cannot predict the impacts of the outcome of future rulemaking.

To minimize impingement mortality, the rule provides operators of facilities, such as SJGS and Four Corners, seven options for meeting Best Technology Available (“BTA”) standards for reducing impingement. SJGS has a closed-cycle recirculating cooling system, which is a listed BTA and may also qualify for the “de minimis rate of impingement” based on the design of the intake structure. The permitting authority must establish the BTA for entrainment on a site-specific basis, taking into consideration an array of factors, including endangered species and social costs and benefits. Affected sources must submit source water baseline characterization data to the permitting authority to assist in the determination. Compliance deadlines under the rule are tied to permit renewal and will be subject to a schedule of compliance established by the permitting authority.

On May 23, 2018, several environmental groups sued EPA Region IX in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court over EPA’s failure to timely reissue the Four Corners NPDES permit. The petitioners asked the court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling EPA Region IX to take final action on the pending NPDES permit by a reasonable date. EPA subsequently reissued the NPDES permit on June 12, 2018. The permit did not contain conditions related to the cooling water intake structure rule, as EPA determined that the facility has achieved BTA for both impingement and entrainment by operating a closed-cycle recirculation system. On July 16, 2018, several environmental groups filed a petition for review with EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board ("EAB") concerning the reissued permit. The environmental groups alleged that the permit was reissued in contravention of several requirements under the Clean Water Act and did not contain required provisions concerning certain revised ELG, existing-source regulations governing cooling-water intake structures, and effluent limits for surface seepage and subsurface discharges from coal-ash disposal facilities. On December 19, 2018, EPA withdrew the Four Corners NPDES permit in order to examine issues raised by the environmental groups. Withdrawal of the permit moots the appeal pending before the EAB. EAB thereafter dismissed the environmental groups’ appeal. EPA issued an updated NPDES permit on September 30, 2019. The permit was once again appealed to the EAB and was stayed before the effective date. Oral argument was heard on September 3, 2020. The EAB issued an order denying the petition for review on September 30, 2020. The denial was based on the EAB's determination that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that review of the permit was warranted on any of the grounds presented in the petition. Thereafter, the Regional Administrator of the EPA signed a Notice of Final Permit Decision, and the NPDES permit was issued on November 9, 2020. The permit became effective December 1, 2020 and will expire on November 30, 2025. On January 22, 2021, the environmental groups filed a petition for review of the EAB's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The September 2019 permit remains in effect pending this appeal. On March 21, 2022, EPA provided notice in the Federal Register of a proposed settlement agreement with the environmental groups. Under the proposed settlement, the parties would seek to stay the associated case for at least 15 months during which a third-party consultant would spend 12 months sampling discharges from Four Corners and EPA would spend three months completing an analysis. Comments on the proposed settlement were due by April 20, 2022. PNM cannot predict whether the parties will ultimately sign the settlement agreement or whether the analysis to be conducted under the settlement agreement will result in changes to the NPDES permit that will have a material impact on PNM’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

On June 7, 2013, EPA published proposed revised wastewater ELG establishing technology-based wastewater discharge limitations for fossil fuel-fired electric power plants. EPA signed the final Steam Electric ELG rule on September 30, 2015. The final rule, which became effective on January 4, 2016, phased in the new, more stringent requirements in the form of effluent limits for arsenic, mercury, selenium, and nitrogen for wastewater discharged from wet scrubber systems and zero discharge of pollutants in ash transport water that must be incorporated into plants’ NPDES permits. The 2015 rule required each plant to comply between 2018 and 2023 depending on when it needs a new or revised NPDES permit.

The Steam Electric ELG rule was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by numerous parties. On April 12, 2017, EPA signed a notice indicating its intent to reconsider portions of the rule, and on August 22, 2017, the Fifth Circuit issued an order severing the issues under reconsideration and holding the case in abeyance as to those issues. However, the court allowed challenges to other portions of the rule to proceed. On April 12, 2019, the Fifth Circuit granted those challenges and issued an opinion vacating several portions of the rule, specifically those related to legacy wastewater and leachate, for which the court deemed the standards selected by EPA arbitrary and capricious.

On September 18, 2017, EPA published a final rule for postponement of certain compliance dates. The rule postponed the earliest date on which compliance with the ELG for these waste streams would be required from November 1, 2018 until November 1, 2020. On November 22, 2019, EPA published a proposed rule revising the original ELG while maintaining the compliance dates. Comments were due January 21, 2020. On October 13, 2020, EPA published in the Federal Register the final Steam Electric ELG and standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, revising the final 2015 guidelines for both flue gas desulfurization wastewater and bottom ash transport water. The rule will require compliance with new limits as soon as possible on or after October 13, 2021, but no later than December 31, 2025.

PNM and NMED are parties to agreements under which PNM has installed a remediation system to treat water from a City of Santa Fe municipal supply well and an extraction well to address gasoline contamination in the groundwater at the site of PNM’s former Santa Fe Generating Station and service center. A 2008 NMED site inspection report states that neither the source nor extent of contamination at the site has been determined and that the source may not be the former Santa Fe Generating Station. During 2013 and 2014, PNM and NMED collected additional samples that showed elevated concentrations of nitrate and volatile organic compounds in some of the monitoring wells at the site. In addition, one monitoring well contained free-phase hydrocarbon products. PNM collected a sample of the product for “fingerprint” analysis. The results of this analysis indicated the product was a mixture of older and newer fuels. The presence of newer fuels in the sample suggests the hydrocarbon product likely originated from off-site sources. In December 2015, PNM and NMED entered into a memorandum of understanding to address changing groundwater conditions at the site under which PNM agreed to continue hydrocarbon investigation under the supervision of NMED. Qualified costs are eligible for payment through the New Mexico Corrective Action Fund (“CAF”), which is administered by the NMED Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau. In March 2019, PNM received notice from NMED that an abatement plan for the site is required to address concentrations of previously identified compounds, unrelated to those discussed above, found in the groundwater. NMED approved PNM’s abatement plan proposal, which covers field work and reporting.

The City of Santa Fe has stopped operating its well at the site, which is needed for PNM’s groundwater remediation system to operate. As a result, PNM has stopped performing remediation activities at the site. However, PNM’s monitoring and other abatement activities at the site are ongoing and will continue until the groundwater meets applicable federal and state standards or until the NMED determines remediation is not required, whichever is earlier. PNM is not able to assess the duration of this project or estimate the impact on its obligations if PNM is required to resume groundwater remediation activities at the site. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of these matters.

EPA’s final coal ash rule, which became effective on October 19, 2015, included a non-hazardous waste determination for coal ash and sets minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments. On December 16, 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (the “WIIN Act”) was signed into law to address critical water infrastructure needs in the U.S. and contains a number of provisions related to the CCR rules. Among other things, the WIIN Act allows, but does not require, states to develop and submit CCR permit programs for EPA approval, provides flexibility for states to incorporate EPA’s final rule for CCRs or develop other criteria that are at least as protective as EPA’s final rule, and requires EPA to approve state permit programs within 180 days of submission by the state. Because states are not required to implement their own CCR permit programs, EPA will implement the permit program in states that choose not to implement a program, subject to Congressional funding. Until permit programs are in effect, EPA has authority to directly enforce the CCR rule. For facilities located within the boundaries of Native American reservations, such as the Navajo Nation where Four Corners is located, EPA is required to develop a federal permit program regardless of appropriated funds.

On July 30, 2018, EPA published a rule that constitutes “Phase One, Part One” of its ongoing reconsideration and revision of the April 17, 2015 CCR rule. The final Phase One, Part One rule includes two types of revisions. The first revision extended the deadline to allow EGUs with unlined impoundments or that fail to meet the uppermost aquifer requirement to continue to receive coal ash until October 31, 2020. This deadline was again extended by subsequent amendments. The rule also authorized a “Participating State Director” or EPA to approve suspension of groundwater monitoring requirements and to issue certifications related to the location restrictions, design criteria, groundwater monitoring, remedy selection and implementation. The rule also modified groundwater protection standards for certain constituents, which include cobalt, molybdenum, lithium, and lead without a maximum contamination level.

On August 14, 2019, EPA published a second round of revisions, which are commonly referred to as the “Phase Two” revisions. Phase Two proposed revisions to reporting and accessibility to public information, the "CCR piles" and "beneficial use" definitions and the requirements for management of CCR piles. EPA has reopened and extended the Phase Two comment period several times. Most recently, on March 12, 2021, EPA reopened the comment period on its prior notice that announced the availability of new information and data pertaining to the Phase Two proposed rule. EPA extended the comment period for an additional 60 days, until May 11, 2021. EPA has not yet finalized provisions in Phase Two related to beneficial use of CCR and CCR piles. This activity is on EPA's long-term agenda, which means EPA has no plans to address these issues in the next 12 months.

Since promulgating its Phase Two proposal, EPA has finalized two other rules addressing various CCR rule provisions. On December 2, 2019, EPA promulgated its proposed Holistic Approach to Closure Part A ("Part A"), which proposed a new deadline of August 31, 2020, for companies to initiate closure of unlined CCR impoundments. In accordance with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals’ vacatur of portions of the CCR Rule, Part A also proposed changing the classification of compacted soil-lined or clay-lined surface impoundments from “lined” to “unlined”. In addition, Part A delineated a process for owners/operators to submit requests for alternative closure deadlines based on lack of alternate disposal capacity. EPA issued the final Part A on August 28, 2020, which became effective on September 28, 2020. This rule finalized the classification of soil-lined and clay-lined surface impoundments as unlined, thus, triggering closure or retrofit requirements for those impoundments. The final Part A also gave operators of unlined impoundments until April 11, 2021 to cease receipt of waste at these units and initiate closure.

On March 3, 2020, EPA issued the proposed Holistic Approach to Closure Part B ("Part B"), which delineated the process for owners/operators to submit alternate liner demonstrations for clay-lined surface impoundments that could otherwise meet applicable requirements. Part B also proposed regulations addressing beneficial use for closure of surface impoundments. On November 12, 2020, EPA issued the final Part B rule, which became effective December 14, 2020. This rule did not include beneficial use of CCR for closure, which EPA explains will be addressed in subsequent rulemaking actions. EPA intends to issue several other rulemakings covering legacy ponds and finalizing parts of previously proposed rules. These proposed rules and final rules are expected in 2022.

On February 20, 2020, EPA published a proposed rule establishing a federal permitting program for the handling of CCR within the boundaries of Native American reservations and in states without their own federally authorized state programs. Permits for units within the boundaries of Native American reservations would be due 18 months after the effective date of the rule. The final rule is expected in October 2022. EPA is coordinating with the affected permits for the three facilities with CCR disposal units located on Native American lands. PNM cannot predict the outcome of EPA’s rule making activity or the outcome of any related litigation, and whether or how such a ruling would affect operations at Four Corners.

The CCR rule does not cover mine placement of coal ash. OSM is expected to publish a proposed rule covering mine placement in the future and will likely be influenced by EPA’s rule and the determination by EPA that CCRs are non-hazardous. PNM cannot predict the outcome of OSM’s proposed rulemaking regarding CCR regulation, including mine placement of CCRs, or whether OSM’s actions will have a material impact on PNM’s operations, financial position, or cash flows. Based upon the requirements of the final Part A CCR rule, PNM conducted a CCR assessment at SJGS and made minor modifications at the plant to ensure that there are no facilities that would be considered impoundments or landfills under the rule. PNM would seek recovery from its retail customers of all CCR costs for jurisdictional assets that are ultimately incurred.

Utilities that own or operate CCR disposal units, such as those at Four Corners, as indicated above, were required to collect sufficient groundwater sampling data to initiate a detection monitoring program. Four Corners completed the analysis for its CCR disposal units, which identified several units that will need corrective action or will need to cease operations and initiate closure by April 11, 2021. As part of this assessment, Four Corners will continue to gather additional groundwater data and perform remedial evaluations. At this time, PNM does not anticipate its share of the cost to complete these corrective actions to close the CCR disposal units, or to gather and perform remedial evaluations on groundwater at Four Corners, will have a significant impact on its operations, financial position, or cash flows.

In conjunction with the activities undertaken to comply with the CAA for SJGS, PNM and the other owners of SJGS evaluated alternatives for the supply of coal to SJGS. On July 1, 2015, PNM and Westmoreland entered into a new coal supply agreement (the “SJGS CSA”), pursuant to which Westmoreland, through its indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary SJCC, agreed to supply all of the coal requirements of SJGS through June 30, 2022. PNM and Westmoreland also entered into agreements under which CCR disposal and mine reclamation services for SJGS would be provided. As discussed in Note 6, WSJ LLC assumed the rights and obligations of SJCC under the SJGS CSA and the agreements for CCR disposal and mine reclamation services.

Pricing under the SJGS CSA is primarily fixed, with adjustments to reflect changes in general inflation and takes into account that WSJ LLC has been paid for coal mined but not delivered. Substantially all of PNM's coal costs are passed through the FPPAC. In November 2018, PNM provided notice to Westmoreland that PNM does not intend to extend the term of the SJGS CSA or to negotiate a new coal supply agreement for SJGS, which would have resulted in the current agreement expiring on its own terms on June 30, 2022. On February 17, 2022, PNM and WSJ LLC entered into an amendment to extend the SJGS CSA through September 30, 2022, subject to FERC’s acceptance of amendments to the San Juan Project Participation Agreement. The CSA amendment provides for a fixed price increase of $5.00 per ton, beginning April 1, 2022, which would pass through the FPPAC. FERC accepted the amendments to the participation agreement on March 24, 2022. See additional discussion of PNM’s SJGS Abandonment Application in Note 12.

WSJ LLC notified PNM in July 2021 that it had encountered unfavorable geologic conditions that were impeding longwall progress in the San Juan Mine. On August 17, 2021, WSJ LLC issued a formal notice of non-normal conditions due to WSJ LLC’s inability to maintain a reserve of coal at required levels. WSJ LLC also notified PNM that these geologic complications constituted a force majeure event that was preventing WSJ LLC from satisfying its obligation to maintain required coal inventory levels. Geologic conditions had reportedly improved, and on December 9, 2021, WSJ LLC gave formal notice that they were terminating the potential force majeure conditions. Subsequently, on April 14, 2022, WSJ LLC again

The SJGS Restructuring Agreement sets forth terms under which PNM acquired the coal inventory, including coal mined but not delivered, of the exiting SJGS participants as of January 1, 2016, and supplied coal to the SJGS exiting participants for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017, and is supplying coal to the SJGS remaining participants over the term of the SJGS CSA. Coal costs under the SJGS CSA are significantly less than under the previous arrangement with SJCC. Since substantially all of PNM’s coal costs are passed through the FPPAC, the benefit of the reduced costs is passed through to PNM’s customers.

In connection with certain mining permits relating to the operation of the San Juan mine, the San Juan mine owner was required to post reclamation bonds of $118.7 million with the NMMMD. In order to facilitate the posting of reclamation bonds by sureties on behalf of the San Juan mine owner, PNMR entered into the WFB LOC Facility under which letters of credit aggregating $30.3 million have been issued. As discussed in Note 6, on March 15, 2019, the assets owned by SJCC were sold to WSJ LLC, a subsidiary of Westmoreland Mining Holdings, LLC. Under the sale agreement, WSJ LLC assumed the rights and obligations of SJCC including obligations to PNMR under the outstanding letters of credit.

APS purchases all of Four Corners’ coal requirements from NTEC, an entity owned by the Navajo Nation, under the Four Corners CSA that expires in 2031. The coal comes from reserves located within the Navajo Nation. The contract provides for pricing adjustments over its term based on economic indices. PNM's share of the coal costs is being recovered through the FPPAC. In connection with the exit of Four Corners, PNM would make payments totaling $75.0 million to NTEC for relief from its obligations under the coal supply agreements for Four Corners after December 31, 2024. PNM is not proposing to recover the $75.0 million from ratepayers and, if approved, would not be recovered through the FPPAC. See Note 12 for additional information on PNM's Four Corners Abandonment Application. See additional discussion of the Four Corners CSA in Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2021 Annual Reports on Form 10-K.

NTEC contracted with Bisti Fuels Company, LLC, a subsidiary of The North American Coal Corporation, for management and operation of the mine. Under the CSA, NTEC has the right, after a specified period, to request approval from the Four Corners owners to replace Bisti Fuels Company as mine manager with NTEC’s internal resources and perform all or some mine management functions. APS granted approval on behalf of the owners on June 16, 2021, subject to certain credit assurance requirements. On June 17, 2021, NTEC notified The North American Coal Corporation that the contract mining agreement between Bisti Fuels Company and NTEC is terminated effective September 30, 2021. NTEC assumed direct operations at Navajo Mine on October 1, 2021.

As indicated under Coal Combustion Residuals Waste Disposal above, SJGS currently disposes of CCRs in the surface mine pits adjacent to the plant and Four Corners disposes of CCRs in ponds and dry storage areas. As discussed in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2021 Annual Reports on Form 10-K, in conjunction with the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and to comply with the BART requirements of the CAA, periodic updates to the coal mine reclamation study were requested by the SJGS participants. These updates have included adjustments to reflect the December 2017 shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3, the terms of the reclamation services agreement with WSJ LLC, and changes to reflect the requirements of the 2015 San Juan mine permit plan.

In late 2020, a mine reclamation cost study was completed for the mine that serves SJGS and in December 2020, PNM remeasured its liability, which resulted in an increase in the overall reclamation costs of $3.6 million, due primarily to higher inflationary factors. As a result, PNM recorded a less than $0.1 million decrease in the liability at December 31, 2020 related to the underground mine and a decrease to the regulatory assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and recorded a $3.6 million increase in the liability associated with the surface mine as regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings. PNM’s estimate of the costs necessary to reclaim the mine that serves SJGS is subject to many assumptions, including the timing of reclamation, generally accepted practices at the time reclamation activities occur, and then current inflation and discount rates. PNM cannot predict the ultimate cost to reclaim the mine that

A coal mine reclamation study for the mine that serves Four Corners was issued in 2019. The study reflected operation of the mine through 2031, the term of the Four Corners CSA. The study resulted in a net increase in PNM’s share of the coal mine reclamation obligation of $0.8 million, which was primarily driven by lower overhead costs offset by an increase driven by a reduction in the discount rate used by PNM to measure the liability during the year ended December 31, 2019. As discussed in Note 12, PNM remains responsible for its share of costs associated with mine reclamation under the Four Corners Purchase and Sale Agreement with NTEC. NTEC and PNM will complete a reclamation study in 2024 providing the final mine reclamation cost estimate on the date of ownership transfer. PNM will make its final reclamation payment to NTEC based on the reclamation study in 2024 and will have no further obligations regarding the mine reclamation after 2024. PNM determined that events and circumstances regarding Four Corners, including the Four Corners Purchase and Sale Agreement with NTEC and the Four Corners Abandonment Application and subsequent appeal of the NMPRC decision, indicated that it is more likely than not that PNM’s share of Four Corners coal mine reclamation obligation would be settled in 2024, rather than 2031. As of December 31, 2020, PNM remeasured its Four Corners coal mine reclamation liability and recorded a decrease to the liability of $2.5 million on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and a decrease to regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Earnings.

Under the terms of the SJGS CSA, PNM and the other SJGS owners are obligated to compensate WSJ LLC for all reclamation costs associated with the supply of coal from the San Juan mine. The SJGS owners entered into a reclamation trust funds agreement to provide funding to compensate WSJ LLC for post-term reclamation obligations. As discussed in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2021 Annual Reports on Form 10-K, as part of the restructuring of SJGS ownership, the SJGS owners negotiated the terms of an amended agreement to fund post-term reclamation obligations under the CSA. The trust funds agreement requires each owner to enter into an individual trust agreement with a financial institution as trustee, create an irrevocable reclamation trust, and periodically deposit funds into the reclamation trust for the owner’s share of the mine reclamation obligation. Deposits, which are based on funding curves, must be made on an annual basis. As part of the restructuring of SJGS ownership discussed above, the SJGS participants agreed to adjusted interim trust funding levels. PNM funded $5.2 million in 2021 and, based on PNM’s reclamation trust fund balance at March 31, 2022, the current funding curves indicate PNM’s required contributions to its reclamation trust fund would be $7.0 million in 2022 and zero in each of 2023 and 2024.

Under the Four Corners CSA, PNM is required to fund its share of estimated final reclamation costs in annual installments into an irrevocable escrow account solely dedicated to the final reclamation cost of the surface mine at Four Corners. PNM contributed $2.2 million in 2021, and anticipates providing additional funding of $2.1 million in each of the years from 2022 through 2024. As discussed above, under the terms of the Four Corners Purchase and Sale Agreement with NTEC, PNM will make its final reclamation payment to NTEC based on the reclamation study in 2024 and will have no further obligations regarding the mine reclamation.

PNM recovers from retail customers reclamation costs associated with the underground mine. However, the NMPRC has capped the amount that can be collected from retail customers for final reclamation of the surface mines at $100.0 million for both SJGS and Four Corners. If future estimates increase the liability for surface mine reclamation, the excess would be expensed at that time. The impacts of changes in New Mexico state law as a result of the enactment of the ETA and regulatory determinations made by the NMPRC may also affect PNM’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. See additional discussion regarding PNM’s SJGS and Four Corners Abandonment Applications in Note 12. PNM is currently unable to determine the outcome of these matters or the range of possible impacts.

and the other SJGS owners entered into the San Juan Decommissioning and Trust Funds Agreement, which requires PNM to fund its ownership share of final decommissioning costs into an irrevocable trust. Under the agreement, PNM is required to make an initial funding of $14.7 million by December 31, 2022. The amount and timing of additional trust funding is subject to revised decommissioning cost studies, a decision by the current owners to permanently retire SJGS and agreement among the SJGS owners. PNM has posted a surety bond in the amount of $46.0 million in connection with certain environmental decommissioning obligations and must maintain the bond or other financial assurance until those obligations are satisfied. The surety bond only represents a liability if PNM fails to deliver on its contractual liability. For information regarding the impact of Ordinance 121 on PNM’s SJGS decommissioning ARO see Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2021 Annual Reports on Form 10-K.

Public liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both commercial sources and an industry-wide retrospective payment plan. In accordance with this act, the PVNGS participants are insured against public liability exposure for a nuclear incident up to $13.5 billion per occurrence. PVNGS maintains the maximum available nuclear liability insurance in the amount of $450 million, which is provided by American Nuclear Insurers. The remaining $13.1 billion is provided through a mandatory industry-wide retrospective assessment program. If losses at any nuclear power plant covered by the program exceed the accumulated funds, PNM could be assessed retrospective premium adjustments. Based on PNM’s 10.2% interest in each of the three PVNGS units, PNM’s maximum potential retrospective premium assessment per incident for all three units is $42.1 million, with a maximum annual payment limitation of $6.2 million, to be adjusted periodically for inflation.

The PVNGS participants maintain insurance for damage to, and decontamination of, property at PVNGS in the aggregate amount of $2.8 billion, a substantial portion of which must first be applied to stabilization and decontamination. These coverages are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (“NEIL”). The primary policy offered by NEIL contains a sublimit of $2.25 billion for non-nuclear property damage. If NEIL’s losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, PNM is subject to retrospective premium adjustments of $5.4 million for each retrospective premium assessment declared by NEIL’s Board of Directors due to losses. The insurance coverages discussed in this and the previous paragraph are subject to certain policy conditions, sublimits, and exclusions.

In September 2012, 43 landowners filed a notice of appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) appealing a March 2011 decision of the BIA Regional Director regarding renewal of a right-of-way for a PNM transmission line. The landowners claim to be allottees, members of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation and allege that PNM is a rights-of-way grantee with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of rights-of-way or both. The allottees generally allege that they were not paid fair market value for the right-of-way, that they were denied the opportunity to make a showing as to their view of fair market value, and thus denied due process. The allottees filed a motion to dismiss their appeal with prejudice, which was granted in April 2014. Subsequent to the dismissal, PNM received a letter from counsel on behalf of what appears to be a subset of the 43 landowner allottees involved in the appeal, notifying PNM that the specified allottees were revoking their consents for renewal of right of way on six specific allotments. On January 22, 2015, PNM received a letter from the BIA Regional Director identifying ten allotments with rights-of-way renewals that were previously contested. The letter indicated that the renewals were not approved by the BIA because the previous consent obtained by PNM was later revoked, prior to BIA approval, by the majority owners of the allotments. It is the BIA Regional Director’s position that PNM must re-obtain consent from these landowners. On July 13, 2015, PNM filed a condemnation action in the NM District Court regarding the approximately 15.49 acres of land at issue. On September 18, 2015, the allottees filed a separate complaint against PNM for federal trespass. On December 1, 2015, the court ruled that PNM could not condemn two of the five allotments at issue based on the Navajo Nation’s fractional interest in the land. PNM filed a motion for reconsideration of this ruling, which was denied. On March 31, 2016, the Tenth Circuit granted PNM’s petition to appeal the December 1, 2015 ruling. Both matters have been consolidated. Oral argument before the Tenth Circuit was heard on January 17, 2017. On May 26, 2017, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. On July 8, 2017, PNM filed a Motion for Reconsideration en banc with the Tenth Circuit, which was denied. The NM District Court stayed the case based on the Navajo Nation’s acquisition of interests in two additional allotments and the unresolved ownership of the fifth allotment due to the owner’s death. On November 20, 2017, PNM filed its petition for writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court, which was denied. The underlying litigation continues in the NM District Court. On March 27, 2019, several individual allottees filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of trespass. The Court held a hearing on the motion on June 18, 2019 and took the

In mid-February 2021, Texas experienced a severe winter storm delivering the coldest temperatures in 100 years for many parts of the state. As a result, the ERCOT market was not able to deliver sufficient generation load to the grid resulting in significant, statewide outages as ERCOT directed transmission operators to curtail thousands of firm load megawatts. TNMP complied with ERCOT directives to curtail the delivery of electricity in its service territory and did not experience significant outages on its system outside of the ERCOT directed curtailments. Various regulatory and governmental entities are conducting, or have announced they may conduct, inquiries, investigations and other reviews of the Texas winter storm event. Entities that have announced that they plan to conduct or are conducting such inquiries, investigations and other reviews include FERC, NERC, Texas Reliability Entity Inc., ERCOT, the Texas Legislature, the Texas Attorney General, the PUCT, and the Galveston County District Attorney. Further, lawsuits have been filed against various market participants relating to the power outages resulting from the Texas winter storm, including TNMP. As a utility operating during the Texas winter storm event, there is a risk TNMP could be named in additional lawsuits in the future. TNMP intends to vigorously defend itself against any claims raised. TNMP deferred bad debt expense from defaulting REPs to a regulatory asset which totaled $0.8 million at both March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, and will seek recovery in a general rate case. At this time, the Company does not expect significant financial impacts related to this event, however, it cannot predict the outcome of such matters or the impact on the ERCOT market.