| Regulatory and Rate Matters | Regulatory and Rate Matters The Company is involved in various regulatory matters, some of which contain contingencies that are subject to the same uncertainties as those described in Note 11. Additional information concerning regulatory and rate matters is contained in Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2018 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. PNM New Mexico General Rate Cases New Mexico 2015 General Rate Case (“NM 2015 Rate Case”) On August 27, 2015, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for a general increase in retail electric rates. The application proposed a revenue increase of $123.5 million , including base non-fuel revenues of $121.7 million . PNM’s application was based on a FTY period beginning October 1, 2015 and proposed a ROE of 10.5% . The primary drivers of PNM’s identified revenue deficiency were the cost of infrastructure investments, including depreciation expense based on an updated depreciation study, and a decline in energy sales as a result of PNM’s successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors. The application included several proposed changes in rate design to establish fair and equitable pricing across rate classes and to better align cost recovery with cost causation and included a request for a revenue decoupling pilot program for residential and small commercial customers. PNM requested that the proposed new rates become effective beginning in July 2016. A public hearing on the proposed new rates was held in April 2016. Subsequent to this hearing, the NMPRC ordered PNM to file additional testimony regarding PNM’s interests in PVNGS, including the 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2 that PNM repurchased in January 2016 pursuant to the terms of the initial sales-leaseback transactions. See Note 13. After additional hearings, PNM and other parties were ordered to file supplemental briefs and to provide final recommended revenue requirements that incorporated fuel savings that PNM implemented effective January 1, 2016 from PNM’s SJGS CSA. See Note 11. PNM’s filing indicated that recovery for fuel related costs would be reduced by approximately $42.9 million reflecting the current SJGS CSA, which also reduced the request for base non-fuel related revenues by $0.2 million to $121.5 million . In August 2016, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued a recommended decision (the “August 2016 RD”). The August 2016 RD, among other things, recommended that the NMPRC find PNM was imprudent in the actions taken to purchase the previously leased 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, extending the leases for 114.6 MW of capacity of PVNGS Units 1 and 2, and installing the BDT equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4. As a result, the August 2016 RD recommended the NMPRC disallow recovery of the entire $163.3 million purchase price for the January 15, 2016 purchases of the assets underlying three leases aggregating 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2, the undepreciated capital improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW of purchased capacity was leased, rent expense aggregating $18.1 million annually for leases aggregating 114.6 MW of capacity that were extended through January 2023 and 2024 (Note 13), and recovery of the costs of converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT. On September 28, 2016, the NMPRC issued an order that authorized PNM to implement an increase in non-fuel rates of $61.2 million , effective for bills sent to customers after September 30, 2016. The order generally approved the August 2016 RD, but with certain significant modifications. The modifications to the August 2016 RD included: • Inclusion of the January 2016 purchase of the assets underlying three leases of capacity, aggregating 64.1 MW, of PVNGS Unit 2 at an initial rate base value of $83.7 million ; and disallowance of the recovery of the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW was being leased by PNM, which aggregated $43.8 million when the order was issued • Recovery of annual rent expenses associated with the 114.6 MW of capacity under the extended leases • Disallowance of the recovery of any future contributions for PVNGS decommissioning costs related to the 64.1 MW of capacity purchased in January 2016 and the 114.6 MW of capacity under the extended leases On September 30, 2016, PNM filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court regarding the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case. Specifically, PNM appealed the NMPRC’s determination that PNM was imprudent in certain matters in the case, including the NMPRC’s disallowance of the full purchase price of the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW of capacity was leased by PNM, the cost of converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT, and future contributions for PVNGS decommissioning attributable to the 64.1 MW of purchased capacity and the 114.6 MW of capacity under the extended leases. NEE, NM AREA, and ABCWUA filed notices of cross-appeal to PNM’s appeal. The issues appealed by the various cross-appellants included, among other things, the NMPRC allowing PNM to recover any of the costs of the lease extensions for the 114.6 MW of PVNGS Units 1 and 2 and the purchase price for the 64.1 MW in PVNGS Unit 2, the costs incurred under the Four Corners CSA, and the inclusion of the “prepaid pension asset” in rate base. During the pendency of the appeal, PNM evaluated the consequences of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case and the related appeals to the NM Supreme Court as required under GAAP. These evaluations indicated that it was reasonably possible that PNM would be successful on the issues it was appealing but would not be provided capital costs recovery until the NMPRC acted on a decision of the NM Supreme Court. PNM also evaluated the accounting consequences of the issues being appealed by the cross-appellants and concluded that the issues raised in the cross-appeals did not have substantial merit. In accordance with GAAP, PNM periodically updated its estimate of the amount of time necessary for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues. As a result of those evaluations, through March 31, 2019, PNM had recorded accumulated pre-tax impairments of its capital investments subject to the appeal in the amount of $19.7 million , which includes pre-tax losses of $1.3 million recorded during the three months ended March 31, 2019, and $0.9 million and $2.7 million recorded during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018. On May 16, 2019, the NM Supreme Court issued its decision on the matters that had been appealed in the NM 2015 Rate Case. The NM Supreme Court rejected the matters appealed by the cross-appellants and affirmed the NMPRC’s disallowance of a portion of the purchase price of the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2; the undepreciated costs of capital improvements made during the time that the 64.1 MW capacity was leased by PNM; and the costs to install BDT at SJGS Units 1 and 4. The NM Supreme Court’s decision also ruled that the NMPRC’s decision to permanently disallow recovery of future decommissioning costs related to the 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2 and the 114.6 MW of PVNGS Units 1 and 2 deprived PNM of its rights to due process of law and remanded the case to the NMPRC for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s findings. On July 17, 2019, the NMPRC heard oral argument from parties in the case on how to best proceed with the NM Supreme Court’s remand. At oral argument, parties presented various positions ranging from re-litigating the value of PVNGS resources determined by the NMPRC and affirmed by the NM Supreme Court to re-affirming the NMPRC’s final order with a single modification to address recovery of future PVNGS decommissioning costs in a future case. The NMPRC has taken no action with respect to this matter since oral argument was presented. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. As a result of the NM Supreme Court’s ruling, PNM recorded a pre-tax impairment of $149.3 million as of June 30, 2019 which is reflected as regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings. The impairment reflects capital costs not previously impaired during the pendency of the appeal and includes $72.6 million for a portion of the purchase price for 64.1 MW in PVNGS Unit 2, $39.3 million of undepreciated capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW was being leased by PNM, and $37.4 million for BDT on SJGS Units 1 and 4. The impairment was offset by tax impacts of $45.7 million , which are reflected as income taxes on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings. New Mexico 2016 General Rate Case (“NM 2016 Rate Case”) On December 7, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for a general increase in retail electric rates. PNM did not include any of the costs disallowed in the NM 2015 Rate Case that were at issue in its then pending appeal to the NM Supreme Court. PNM’s original application used a FTY beginning January 1, 2018 and requested an increase in base non-fuel revenues of $99.2 million based on a ROE of 10.125% . The primary drivers of PNM’s revenue deficiency included implementation of modifications to PNM’s resource portfolio, which were approved by the NMPRC in December 2015 as part of the SJGS regional haze compliance plan, infrastructure investments, including environmental upgrades at Four Corners, declines in forecasted energy sales due to successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors, and updates to FERC/retail jurisdictional allocations. After extensive settlement negotiations and public proceedings, the NMPRC issued a Revised Order Partially Adopting Certification of Stipulation dated January 10, 2018 (the “Revised Order”). The key terms of the Revised Order include: • An increase in base non-fuel revenues totaling $10.3 million , which includes a reduction to reflect the impact of the decrease in the federal corporate income tax rate and updates to PNM’s cost of debt (aggregating an estimated $47.6 million annually) • A ROE of 9.575% • Returning to customers over a three -year period the benefit of the reduction in the New Mexico corporate income tax rate to the extent attributable to PNM’s retail operations (Note 14) • Disallowing PNM’s ability to collect an equity return on certain investments aggregating $148.1 million at Four Corners, but allowing recovery with a debt-only return • An agreement to not implement non-fuel base rate changes, other than changes related to PNM’s rate riders, with an effective date prior to January 1, 2020 • A requirement to consider the prudency of PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners in a future proceeding In accordance with the settlement agreement and the NMPRC’s final order, PNM implemented 50% of the approved increase for service rendered beginning February 1, 2018 and implemented the rest of the increase for service rendered beginning January 1, 2019. Investigation/Rulemaking Concerning NMPRC Ratemaking Policies On March 22, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order opening an investigation and rulemaking to simplify and increase “the transparency of NMPRC rate cases by reducing the number of issues litigated in rate cases,” and provide a “more level playing field among intervenors and NMPRC staff on the one hand, and the utilities on the other.” The order posed several questions related to establishing and monitoring utilities’ ROEs, the recoverability of regulatory assets, including rate case costs, and whether parties should have access to software used by utilities to support their positions. To date, no agreement has been reached. PNM is not able to predict the potential outcome of this matter but does not anticipate the NMPRC will take any further action. Renewable Portfolio Standard Prior to the enactment of the ETA, the REA established a mandatory RPS requiring a utility to acquire a renewable energy portfolio equal to 10% of retail electric sales by 2011, 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. As discussed in Note 11, the ETA was enacted on June 14, 2019. The ETA amends the REA and requires utilities operating in New Mexico to have renewable portfolios equal to 20% by 2020, 40% by 2025, 50% by 2030, 80% by 2040, and 100% zero-carbon energy by 2045. The ETA also removes diversity requirements and certain customer caps and exemptions relating to the application of the RPS under the REA. The REA provides for streamlined proceedings for approval of utilities’ renewable energy procurement plans, assures that utilities recover costs incurred consistent with approved procurement plans, and requires the NMPRC to establish a RCT for the procurement of renewable resources to prevent excessive costs being added to rates. The ETA sets a RCT of $60 per MWh using an average annual levelized resource cost basis. PNM makes renewable procurements consistent with the NMPRC approved plans. PNM recovers certain renewable procurement costs from customers through a rate rider. See Renewable Energy Rider below. Included in PNM’s approved procurement plans are the following renewable energy resources: • 157 MW of PNM-owned solar-PV facilities, including 50 MW of PNM-owned solar-PV facilities approved by the NMPRC in PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan that are expected to be placed in commercial operation by the end of 2019 • A PPA through 2044 for the output of New Mexico Wind, having a current aggregate capacity of 204 MW, and a PPA through 2035 for the output of Red Mesa Wind, having an aggregate capacity of 102 MW • A PPA through 2042 for the output of the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility; with a current capacity of 15 MW • Solar distributed generation, aggregating 121.2 MW at September 30, 2019 , owned by customers or third parties from whom PNM purchases any net excess output and RECs • Solar and wind RECs as needed to meet the RPS requirements On June 1, 2017, PNM filed its 2018 renewable energy procurement plan. PNM requested approval to procure an additional 80 GWh in 2019 and 105 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of New Mexico Wind; approval to procure an additional 55 GWh in 2019 and 77 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal; approval to procure 50 MW of new solar facilities to be constructed beginning in 2018, and continuation of customer REC purchase programs and other purchases of RECs to ensure annual compliance with the RPS. The plan also sought a variance from the “other” diversity category in 2018 due to a revised production forecast of the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility in 2018. A public hearing on the application was held in September 2017. On October 17, 2017, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision that PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan be approved by the NMPRC, except for the re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal and PNM’s request to procure 50 MW of new solar facilities. PNM filed exceptions contesting the Hearing Examiner’s proposals. On November 15, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order approving PNM’s plan and rejecting the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations. On November 29, 2017, NM AREA filed an appeal with the NM Supreme Court objecting to the fuel allocation methodology and requested a partial stay of the NMPRC order, which was denied. NEE subsequently filed a motion to intervene and cross-appeal objecting to the approval of the 50 MW of new solar facilities. On July 5, 2019, the NM Supreme Court approved a motion filed by NM AREA to dismiss its appeal. On August 8, 2019, the NM Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming the NMPRC’s approval of PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan and denying NEE’s cross appeal. This matter is now concluded. On June 1, 2018, PNM filed its 2019 renewable energy procurement plan. The plan met RPS and diversity requirements for 2019 and 2020 using resources already approved by the NMPRC and did not propose any significant new procurements. PNM projects that the plan will be within the RCT in 2019 and will slightly exceed the current RCT in 2020. The NMPRC approved PNM’s 2019 renewable energy procurement plan on November 28, 2018. On June 3, 2019, PNM filed its 2020 renewable energy procurement plan. The plan requests approval of a 20 -year PPA to purchase 140 MW of renewable energy and RECs from the La Joya Wind Facility (“La Joya Wind”), which is expected to be operational by December 31, 2020. PNM intends to utilize the BB2 line to deliver power from the PPA. See additional discussion below under Application for a New 345 -kV Transmission Line . PNM’s 2020 renewable energy procurement plan requests a variance from the RPS for 2020 and proposes the shortfall be met with excess RECs that will be available under the La Joya Wind PPA in 2021. PNM also submitted proposed adjustments to the current FPPAC methodology for non-renewable fuel allocations to reflect the ETA’s removal of certain customer cost caps associated with the RPS and requested that the fuel clause year be reset to correspond to the January 1 reset date under the renewable energy rider. On July 17, 2019, PNM filed a corrected reconciliation of 2019 and estimated 2020 customer bill impacts that demonstrated the effect of removing certain customer caps and exemptions under the requirements of the newly enacted ETA. The Hearing Examiner issued a response requiring PNM to address why its application should not be dismissed, or alternatively, proposing an extended procedural schedule. PNM’s response proposed the application not be dismissed, that a corrected public notice be issued, and that the procedural schedule be extended by 60 days. On July 30, 2019, the Hearing Examiner issued a revised procedural order that extended the statutory review period through January 29, 2020. On September 17, 2019, the Hearing Examiner issued an order requiring PNM to provide supplemental briefing supporting the applicability of the ETA to PNM’s 2020 renewable energy procurement plan and, in the event the ETA should not apply, support PNM’s position that the NMPRC has the authority to approve PNM’s requested variance. PNM filed its brief on September 24, 2019, supporting the applicability of the ETA and the NMPRC’s authority to grant the requested variance. On October 4, 2019, the Hearing Examiner issued an order requiring PNM to provide RPS calculations using rules and regulations existing before the ETA. PNM filed its rebuttal testimony on October 15, 2019, which included the calculations required by the Hearing Examiner. Other parties have taken positions in the case ranging from applying the ETA and approving the 140 MW PPA to not applying the ETA and denying the PPA. Public hearings were held on October 24 and 25, 2019. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter or the potential impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Renewable Energy Rider The NMPRC has authorized PNM to recover certain renewable procurement costs through a rate rider billed on a per KWh basis. In its 2019 renewable energy procurement plan case, which was approved by the NMPRC on November 28, 2018, PNM proposed to collect $49.6 million for the year. The 2019 renewable energy procurement plan became effective on January 1, 2019. PNM recorded revenues from the rider of $11.9 million and $37.4 million in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019 and $8.7 million and $30.4 million in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018 . In its 2020 renewable energy procurement plan, PNM proposes to collect $58.9 million for 2020. Under the renewable rider, if PNM’s earned rate of return on jurisdictional equity in a calendar year, adjusted for items not representative of normal operations, exceeds the NMPRC-approved rate by 0.5% , PNM is required to refund the excess to customers during May through December of the following year. PNM did not exceed such limitation in 2018 and does not expect to exceed the limitation in 2019. Energy Efficiency and Load Management Petition for Energy Efficiency Disincentive PNM’s application in the NM 2016 Rate Case had requested a “lost contribution to fixed cost” mechanism to address the disincentives associated with PNM’s energy efficiency programs. In the revised stipulation to that case, PNM agreed to withdraw its proposal for such a mechanism and to address energy efficiency disincentives in a future docket. On March 2, 2018, PNM filed a petition proposing a “lost contribution to fixed cost mechanism” with substantially the same terms as those proposed in the NM 2016 Rate Case application. During the 2019 New Mexico legislative session, the Efficient Use of Energy Act was amended to, among other things, include a decoupling mechanism for disincentives, preclude a reduction to a utility’s ROE based on approval of disincentive or incentive mechanisms, and to establish savings targets for the period 2021 through 2025. On May 6, 2019, PNM submitted a request to the NMPRC to dismiss this matter. PNM will propose a mechanism to address disincentives in a future general rate case filing. The NMPRC approved PNM’s request to dismiss the matter on June 12, 2019, concluding this matter. Integrated Resource Plans NMPRC rules require that investor owned utilities file an IRP every three years . The IRP is required to cover a 20 -year planning period and contain an action plan covering the first four years of that period. 2014 IRP PNM filed its 2014 IRP on July 1, 2014. On July 31, 2014, several parties requested the NMPRC to not accept the 2014 IRP as compliant with NMPRC rule because to do so could affect the then pending proceeding on PNM’s application to abandon SJGS Units 2 and 3 and for CCNs for certain replacement resources and because they asserted that the 2014 IRP did not conform to the NMPRC’s IRP rule. The NMPRC issued an order in August 2014 that docketed a case to determine whether the 2014 IRP complied with applicable NMPRC rules. The order also held the case in abeyance pending the issuance of final, non-appealable orders in PNM’s 2015 renewable energy procurement plan case and its application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. On May 4, 2016, the NMPRC issued a Notice of Proposed Dismissal, stating that the docket would be closed with prejudice within thirty days unless good cause was shown why the docket should remain open. On May 31, 2016, NEE filed a request to hold the protests filed against PNM’s 2014 IRP in abeyance or to dismiss those protests without prejudice. PNM responded on June 13, 2016 and requested that the NMPRC dismiss the case with prejudice. The NMPRC has not yet acted on its Notice of Proposed Dismissal or the request filed on May 31, 2016. PNM is not able to predict the potential outcome of this matter but does not anticipate the NMPRC will take any further action. 2017 IRP PNM filed its 2017 IRP on July 3, 2017. The 2017 IRP addresses the 20 -year planning period from 2017 through 2036 and includes an action plan describing PNM’s plan to implement the 2017 IRP in the four -year period following its filing. The 2017 IRP analyzed several scenarios utilizing assumptions that PNM continues service from its SJGS capacity beyond mid-2022 and that PNM retires its capacity after mid-2022. Key findings of the 2017 IRP included, among other things, that retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 and existing ownership in Four Corners in 2031 would provide long-term cost savings for PNM’s customers and that the best mix of new resources to replace the retired coal generation would include solar energy and flexible natural gas-fired peaking capacity as well as energy storage, if the economics support it, and wind energy provided additional transmission capacity becomes available. The 2017 IRP also indicated that PNM should retain the currently leased capacity in PVNGS. See additional discussion of PNM’s leased capacity in PVNGS below and in Note 13. Protests to the 2017 IRP were filed by several parties. The issues addressed in the protests included the future of PNM’s interests in SJGS, Four Corners, and PVNGS and the timing of future procurement of renewable resources. On December 19, 2018, after public hearings and consideration of the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations, the NMPRC issued a final order accepting PNM’s 2017 IRP as compliant with applicable statute and NMPRC rules. On January 18, 2019, the Board of the County of Commissioners for San Juan County, New Mexico, the City of Farmington, New Mexico, and other parties filed a Notice of Appeal with the NM Supreme Court regarding the NMPRC’s final order in PNM’s 2017 IRP. On January 18, 2019, NEE submitted a motion requesting the NMPRC reconsider its acceptance of PNM’s 2017 IRP and alleging informational inadequacy and deficiencies in PNM’s filing, which was deemed denied. On February 19, 2019, NEE filed a motion with the NM Supreme Court to intervene in the appeal and to seek remand of the matter to the NMPRC. On March 11, 2019, PNM filed its response with the NM Supreme Court stating that the NMPRC has already considered and, by operation of law, denied NEE’s motion for reconsideration. On May 10, 2019, the appellants, excluding NEE, filed a motion with the NM Supreme Court to dismiss their appeal, which was supported by PNM. On May 31, 2019, the NM Supreme Court denied NEE’s request to remand the proceeding to the NMPRC and ordered NEE to respond to the motion to dismiss the appeal. On June 4, 2019, NEE responded that it did not oppose the appellants’ request to dismiss their appeal. On July 26, 2019, the NM Supreme Court granted the parties’ motions to dismiss the appeal. On September 19, 2019, NEE filed a second motion requesting the NMPRC reconsider its acceptance of PNM’s 2017 IRP, which was deemed denied. This matter is now concluded. As discussed below, on July 1, 2019, PNM submitted its SJGS Abandonment Application with the NMPRC requesting approval to retire SJGS in 2022, for replacement resources, and for the issuance of securitized financing under the ETA. Many of the assumptions and findings included in PNM’s July 1, 2019 filing were consistent with those identified in PNM’s 2017 IRP. The SJGS Abandonment Application and the 2017 IRP are not a final determinations of PNM’s future generation portfolio. PNM will also be required to obtain NMPRC approval of an exit from Four Corners, which PNM will seek at an appropriate time in the future. Likewise, NMPRC approval of new generation resources through CCNs, PPAs, or other applicable filings will be required. 2020 IRP In the third quarter of 2019, PNM initiated its 2020 IRP process which will cover the 20 -year planning period from 2019 through 2039. Consistent with historical practice, PNM has provided notice to various interested parties and has hosted a series of public advisory presentations. PNM will continue to seek input from interested parties as a part of this process and plans to file the 2020 IRP with the NMPRC by July 2020. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter. SJGS Abandonment Application On July 1, 2019, PNM filed a Consolidated Application for the Abandonment and Replacement of SJGS and Related Securitized Financing Pursuant to the ETA (the “SJGS Abandonment Application”). The SJGS Abandonment Application seeks NMPRC approval to retire PNM’s share of SJGS after the existing coal supply and participation agreements end in June 2022, for approval of replacement resources, and for the issuance of “energy transition bonds,” as provided by the ETA. PNM’s application proposes several replacement resource scenarios including PNM’s recommended replacement scenario, which would provide cost savings to customers compared to continued operation of SJGS, preserves system reliability, and is consistent with PNM’s plan to have an emissions-free generation portfolio by 2040. This plan would provide PNM authority to construct and own a 280 MW natural gas-fired peaking plant, to be located on the existing SJGS facility site, and 70 MW of battery storage facilities. In addition, PNM’s recommended replacement resource scenario would allow PNM to execute PPAs to procure renewable energy from a total of 350 MW of solar-PV generating facilities and for energy from a total of 60 MW of battery storage facilities. PNM’s application included three other replacement resource scenarios that would place a greater amount of resources in the San Juan area, or result in no new fossil-fueled generating facilities, or no battery storage facilities being added to PNM’s portfolio. Each of these alternative replacement resource scenarios is expected to result in increased costs to customers and lower expected system reliability when compared to PNM’s recommended replacement resource scenario. On September 20, 2019 and October 1, 2019, PNM filed errata notices and testimony, which did not change PNM’s proposed replacement resource portfolio. The SJGS Abandonment Application includes a request to issue approximately $361 million of energy transition bonds (the “Securitized Bonds”). The amount of Securitized Bonds to be issued will be dependent upon several factors including NMPRC approval. PNM’s request for the issuance of Securitized Bonds includes approximately $283 million of forecasted undepreciated investments in SJGS at June 30, 2020, an estimated $28.6 million for plant decommissioning and coal mine reclamation costs, approximately $9.6 million in upfront financing costs, and approximately $20.0 million for job training and severance costs for affected employees. Proceeds from the Securitization Bonds would also be used to fund approximately $19.8 million for economic development in the four corners area. As discussed in Note 11, the NM Supreme Court granted a request by PNM to stay a January 30, 2019 NMPRC order requiring PNM to file an abandonment application for SJGS by March 1, 2019. On June 26, 2019, the NM Supreme Court lifted the stay and denied PNM’s petition without discussion. On July 10, 2019, the NMPRC issued an order requiring the SJGS Abandonment Application be considered in two proceedings: one addressing SJGS abandonment and related financing, and the other addressing replacement resources. The NMPRC indicated that PNM’s July 1, 2019 filing is responsive to the January 30, 2019 order but did not definitively indicate if the abandonment and financing proceedings will be evaluated under the requirements of the ETA. The NMPRC’s July 10, 2019 order also extended the deadline to issue the abandonment and financing order to nine months and to issue the replacement resources order to 15 months. On July 22, 2019, Western Resource Advocates filed a motion for clarification, reconsideration, and request for oral argument with the NMPRC. The motion requested the NMPRC clarify whether it intends to evaluate the abandonment and financing proceeding under the requirements of the ETA and, in the event the abandonment and financing proceeding will not be evaluated under the ETA, to reconsider its decision and provide parties an opportunity to present oral argument on the matter. The NMPRC chair responded on July 24, 2019, indicating that the Hearing Examiners assigned to the proceeding would address the issue of law applicable to the approvals sought by PNM in the scheduling orders. On July 25, 2019, the Hearing Examiners issued procedural orders that set public hearings on SJGS abandonment and related financing to begin on December 10, 2019, on PNM’s proposed PPA replacement resources to begin on December 2, 2019, and on PNM-owned replacement resources to begin on March 2, 2020. These procedural orders were subsequently amended to allow public hearings for both the PPA and PNM-owned replacement resources to begin in January 2020. The procedural orders also required PNM to file legal brief by August 23, 2019 regarding the extent to which the state constitution might prevent the ETA from applying to the issues in each proceeding, that parties file responses to PNM’s legal briefs by October 18, 2019, and that parties may file testimony on the merits of their claims regarding the SJGS abandonment and replacement resources if the ETA is ultimately determined to not apply to PNM’s application. On July 29, 2019, Western Resource Advocates filed a motion for interlocutory appeal of the July 24, 2019 order indicating that the procedural order will not provide parties adequate time to determine the applicability of the ETA and requesting an expedited decision from the NMPRC stating their intent to review the proceedings under the requirements of the ETA or under prior law. On August 21, 2019, the NMPRC denied the motion for interlocutor |
