| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Overview There are various claims and lawsuits pending against the Company. The Company also is subject to federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations and periodically participates in the investigation and remediation of various sites. In addition, the Company periodically enters into financial commitments in connection with its business operations. Also, the Company is involved in various legal and regulatory (Note 12) proceedings in the normal course of its business. It is not possible at this time for the Company to determine fully the effect of all litigation and other legal and regulatory proceedings on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. With respect to some of the items listed below, the Company has determined that a loss is not probable or that, to the extent probable, cannot be reasonably estimated. In some cases, the Company is not able to predict with any degree of certainty the range of possible loss that could be incurred. Nevertheless, the Company assesses legal and regulatory matters based on current information and makes judgments concerning their potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of any damages sought, and the probability of success. Such judgments are made with the understanding that the outcome of any litigation, investigation, and other legal proceeding is inherently uncertain. In accordance with GAAP, the Company records liabilities for matters where it is probable a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable. The actual outcomes of the items listed below could ultimately differ from the judgments made and the differences could be material. The Company cannot make any assurances that the amount of reserves or potential insurance coverage will be sufficient to cover the cash obligations that might be incurred as a result of litigation or regulatory proceedings. 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 2014 Annual Reports on Form 10-K. Commitments and Contingencies Related to the Environment Nuclear Spent Fuel and Waste Disposal Nuclear power plant operators are required to enter into spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE that require the DOE to accept and dispose of all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes generated by domestic power reactors. Although the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required the DOE to develop a permanent repository for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel by 1998, the DOE announced that it would not be able to open the repository by 1998 and sought to excuse its performance of these requirements. In November 1997, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision preventing the DOE from excusing its own delay, but refused to order the DOE to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel. Based on this decision and the DOE’s delay, a number of utilities, including APS (on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS owners, including PNM), filed damages actions against the DOE in the Court of Federal Claims. In 2010, the court ordered an award to the PVNGS owners for their damages claim for costs incurred through December 2006. APS filed a subsequent lawsuit, on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS owners, against DOE in the Court of Federal Claims on December 19, 2012. The lawsuit alleged that from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011, additional damages were incurred due to DOE’s continuing failure to remove spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from PVNGS. APS and DOE entered into a settlement agreement, and on October 7, 2014, APS received a settlement payment of $57.4 million for costs paid through June 30, 2011, for DOE’s failure to accept spent nuclear fuel generated at PVNGS. PNM’s share of the settlement was $5.9 million , substantially all of which was credited back to PNM’s customers. The settlement agreement also establishes a process for the payment of subsequent claims through December 31, 2016. Under the settlement agreement, APS must submit claims annually for payment of allowable costs. On October 31, 2014, APS submitted a claim for costs paid between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2014 and agreed to a settlement amount of $42.0 million in March 2015. PNM’s share of the settlement, which amounted to $4.3 million , including $3.1 million credited back to PNM’s customers, was recorded in the three months ended March 31, 2015. The settlement agreement terminates upon payment of costs paid through December 31, 2016, unless extended by mutual written agreement. PNM estimates that it will incur approximately $58.0 million (in 2013 dollars) for its share of the costs related to the on-site interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at PVNGS during the term of the operating licenses. PNM accrues these costs as a component of fuel expense as the fuel is consumed. At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, PNM had a liability for interim storage costs of $12.5 million and $12.3 million included in other deferred credits. On June 8, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision on a challenge by several states and environmental groups of the NRC’s rulemaking regarding temporary storage and permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel. The petitioners had challenged the NRC’s 2010 update to the agency’s Waste Confidence Decision and temporary storage rule (the “Waste Confidence Decision”). The D.C. Circuit found that the Waste Confidence Decision update constituted a major federal action, which, consistent with NEPA, requires either an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact from the NRC’s actions. The D.C. Circuit found that the NRC’s evaluation of the environmental risks from spent nuclear fuel was deficient, and therefore remanded the Waste Confidence Decision update for further action consistent with NEPA. On September 6, 2012, the NRC commissioners issued a directive to the NRC staff to proceed with development of a generic EIS to support an updated Waste Confidence Decision. The NRC commissioners also directed the staff to establish a schedule to publish a final rule and environmental impact study within 24 months of September 6, 2012. In September 2013, the NRC issued its draft generic EIS to support an updated Waste Confidence Decision. On August 26, 2014, the NRC approved a final rule on the environmental effects of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel. The continued storage rule adopted the findings of the generic EIS regarding the environmental impacts of storing spent fuel at any reactor site after the reactor’s licensed period of operations. As a result, those generic impacts do not need to be re-analyzed in the environmental reviews for individual licenses. Although PVNGS had not been involved in any licensing actions affected by the D.C. Circuit’s June 8, 2012 decision, the NRC lifted its suspension on final licensing actions on all nuclear power plant licenses and renewals that went into effect when the D.C. Circuit issued its June 2012 decision. The August 2014 final rule has been subject to continuing legal challenges before the NRC and the United States Court of Appeals. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. PVNGS has sufficient capacity at its on-site 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 United States 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. In 2011, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Nuclear Energy Institute challenged DOE’s 2010 determination of the adequacy of the one tenth of a cent per KWh fee (the “one-mill fee”) paid by the nation’s commercial nuclear power plant owners pursuant to their individual contracts with the DOE. In June 2012, the D.C. Circuit held that DOE failed to conduct a sufficient fee analysis in making the 2010 determination. The D.C. Circuit remanded the 2010 determination to the DOE with instructions to conduct a new fee adequacy determination within six months. In February 2013, upon completion of DOE’s revised one-mill fee adequacy determination, the court reopened the proceedings. On November 19, 2013, the D.C. Circuit ordered the DOE to notify Congress of DOE’s intention to suspend collecting annual fees for nuclear waste disposal from nuclear power plant operators. On January 3, 2014, the DOE notified Congress of its intention to suspend collection of the one-mill fee, subject to Congress’ disapproval. On May 16, 2014, the DOE adjusted the fee to zero . PNM anticipates challenges to this action and is unable to predict its ultimate outcome. The Clean Air Act Regional Haze In 1999, EPA developed a regional haze program and regional haze rules under the CAA. The rule directs each of the 50 states to address regional haze. Pursuant to the CAA, states have the primary role to regulate visibility requirements by promulgating SIPs. States are required to establish goals for improving visibility in national parks and wilderness areas (also known as Class I areas) and to develop long-term strategies for reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause visibility impairment in their own states and for preventing degradation in other states. States must establish a series of interim goals to ensure continued progress. The first planning period specifies setting reasonable progress goals for improving visibility in Class I areas by the year 2018. In July 2005, EPA promulgated its final regional haze rule guidelines for states to conduct BART determinations for certain covered facilities, including utility boilers, built between 1962 and 1977 that have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of visibility impairing pollution. If it is demonstrated that the emissions from these sources cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area, then BART must be installed by 2018. SJGS BART Determination Process – SJGS is a source that is subject to the statutory obligations of the CAA to reduce visibility impacts. The State of New Mexico submitted its SIP on the regional haze and interstate transport elements of the visibility rules for review by EPA in June 2011. The SIP found that BART to reduce NOx emissions from SJGS is selective non-catalytic reduction technology (“SNCR”). Nevertheless, in August 2011, EPA published its FIP, stating that it was required to do so by virtue of a consent decree it had entered into with an environmental group in litigation concerning the interstate transport requirements of the CAA. The FIP included a regional haze BART determination for SJGS that required installation of selective catalytic reduction technology (“SCR”) on all four units by September 21, 2016. In November 2012, EPA approved all components of the SIP, except for the NOx BART determination for SJGS, which continued to be subject to the FIP. PNM, the Governor of New Mexico, and NMED petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review EPA’s decision and requested EPA to reconsider its decision. The Tenth Circuit denied petitions to stay the effective date of the rule. These parties also formally asked EPA to stay the effective date of the rule. Several environmental groups intervened in support of EPA. The parties file periodic status reports with the Tenth Circuit, but proceedings are being held in abeyance as agreed to by the parties. During 2012 and early 2013, PNM, as the operating agent for SJGS, engaged in discussions with NMED and EPA regarding an alternative to the FIP and SIP. Following approval by a majority of the other SJGS owners, PNM, NMED, and EPA agreed on February 15, 2013 to pursue a revised BART path to comply with federal visibility rules at SJGS. The terms of the non-binding agreement would result in the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 by the end of 2017 and the installation of SNCRs on Units 1 and 4 by the later of January 31, 2016 or 15 months after EPA approval of a revised SIP. In accordance with the revised plan, PNM submitted a new BART analysis to NMED on April 1, 2013 and NMED developed a RSIP, both of which reflect the terms of the non-binding agreement. The EIB approved the RSIP in September 2013 and it was submitted to EPA for approval in October 2013. Final rules approving the RSIP and withdrawing the FIP were published in the Federal Register on October 9, 2014 and became effective on November 10, 2014. Conversion of SJGS Units 1 and 4 to balanced draft technology (“BDT”) is included with the installation of SNCRs in the RSIP. The requirement to install BDT was made binding and enforceable in the NSR permit that accompanied the RSIP submitted to the EPA. EPA’s rule approving the RSIP specifically references the NSR permit by including a condition that requires “modification of the fan systems on Units 1 and 4 to achieve ‘balanced’ draft configuration ….” Implementation Activities – Due to the compliance deadline set forth in the FIP, PNM took steps to commence installation of SCRs at SJGS. In October 2012, PNM entered into a contract with an engineering, procurement, and construction contractor to install SCRs on behalf of the SJGS owners. At the time PNM entered into the contract, PNM estimated the total cost to install SCRs on all four units of SJGS to be between approximately $824 million and $910 million . The costs for the project to install SCRs would encompass installation of BDT equipment to comply with the NAAQS requirements described below. The construction contract was terminated in December 2014 following approval of the RSIP by EPA. Also, PNM had previously indicated it estimated the cost of SNCRs on all four units of SJGS to be between approximately $85 million and $90 million based on a conceptual design study. Along with the SNCR installation, additional BDT equipment would be required to be installed to meet the NAAQS requirements described below, the cost of which had been estimated to total between approximately $105 million and $110 million for all four units of SJGS. The above estimates include gross receipts taxes, AFUDC, and other PNM costs. Based upon its current SJGS ownership interest, PNM’s share of the costs described above would have been about 46.3% . Following the February 2013 development of the alternative BART compliance plan, PNM began taking steps to prepare for the potential installation of SNCR and BDT equipment on Units 1 and 4 due to the long lead times on certain equipment purchases. In May 2013, PNM entered into an equipment and related services contract with a technology provider. In July 2014, PNM entered into a contract for management of the construction and in September 2014 entered into a construction and procurement contract. Installation of SNCRs and BDT on SJGS Unit 1 was completed in April 2015 and PNM anticipates that installation of SNCRs and BDT on Unit 4 can be completed within the timeframe contained in the RSIP. NMPRC Filing – On December 20, 2013, PNM made a filing with the NMPRC requesting certain approvals necessary to effectuate the RSIP. In this filing, PNM requested: • Permission to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 at December 31, 2017 and to recover over 20 years their net book value at that date along with a regulated return on those costs • A CCN to include PNM’s ownership of PVNGS Unit 3, amounting to 134 MW, as a resource to serve New Mexico retail customers at a proposed value of $2,500 per KW, effective January 1, 2018 • An order allowing cost recovery for PNM’s share of the installation of SNCR and BDT equipment to comply with NAAQS requirements on SJGS Units 1 and 4, not to exceed a total cost of $82 million • A CCN for an exchange of capacity out of SJGS Unit 3 and into SJGS Unit 4, resulting in ownership of an additional 78 MW in Unit 4 for PNM; the net impact of this exchange and the retirement of Units 2 and 3 would have been a reduction of 340 MW in PNM’s ownership of SJGS The December 20, 2013 NMPRC filing identified a new 177 MW natural gas-fired generation source and 40 MW of new utility-scale solar PV generation to replace a portion of PNM’s share of the reduction in generating capacity due to the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3. PNM received approval to construct the 40 MW of solar PV facilities in its 2015 Renewable Energy Plan. See Note 12. On June 30, 2015, PNM filed an application for a CCN for the gas facility, which is currently contemplated to be rated at 187 MW, to be located at SJGS. PNM estimates the cost of these identified resources would be approximately $212.5 million . These amounts are included in PNM’s current construction expenditure forecast although approval of the plan remains subject to numerous conditions. Although operating costs would be reduced due to the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3, the operating costs for SJGS Units 1 and 4 would increase with the installation of SNCR and BDT equipment. PNM’s requests in the December 20, 2013 NMPRC filing were based on the status of the negotiations among the SJGS owners at that time regarding ownership restructuring and other matters (see SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters below). In July 2014, PNM filed a notice with the NMPRC regarding the status of the negotiations among the SJGS participants, including that the SJGS participants reached non-binding agreements in principle on the ownership restructuring of SJGS and that PNM was proposing to acquire 132 MW of SJGS Unit 4 effective December 31, 2017, rather than exchanging 78 MW of capacity in SJGS Unit 3 for 78 MW in SJGS Unit 4 as contemplated in the December 20, 2013 NMPRC filing. Those agreements were memorialized in the resolution and term sheet described below. On October 1, 2014, PNM, the staff of the NMPRC, the NMAG, New Mexico Independent Power Producers, Western Resource Advocates, and Renewable Energy Industries Association of New Mexico filed a stipulation with the NMPRC. NMIEC subsequently joined the agreement. New Mexico Independent Power Producers, Western Resource Advocates, and Renewable Energy Industries Association of New Mexico have since withdrawn support of the stipulation. Statements of opposition were filed by other intervenors. Under the terms of the stipulation, PNM: • Would be authorized to abandon SJGS Units 2 and 3 effective December 31, 2017 • Would be granted a CCN for an additional 132 MW of SJGS Unit 4 capacity as of January 1, 2018 with a rate base value of $26 million plus any reasonable and prudent investments made in Unit 4 prior to that date; PNM would reduce its carrying value of SJGS Unit 3 by this $26 million • Would recover 50% of the estimated $231 million undepreciated value in SJGS Units 2 and 3 at December 31, 2017; recovery would be over a twenty year period and would include a return on the unrecovered amount at PNM’s WACC; at June 30, 2015, PNM’s net book value of its current ownership share of SJGS Units 2 and 3 was approximately $278 million • Would be granted a CCN for 134 MW of PVNGS Unit 3 at a January 1, 2018 value of $221.1 million ( $1,650 per KW); PNM’s ownership share of PVNGS would also be subject to a capacity factor performance threshold of 75% for a seven year period beginning January 1, 2018; subject to certain exceptions, if the capacity factor is not achieved in any year, PNM would refund the cost of replacement power through its FPPAC; at June 30, 2015, PNM’s net book value of PVNGS Unit 3 was approximately $147 million • Would file for recovery of its reasonable and prudent costs of installation of the SNCR and BDT equipment requirements at SJGS Units 1 and 4 up to $90.6 million • Would not be allowed to recover a total of approximately $20 million of increased operations and maintenance costs associated with the agreement reached with the remaining SJGS participants, additional fuel handling expenses, and certain other costs incurred in efforts to comply with the CAA A public hearing in the NMPRC case was held in January 2015. In connection with the hearing, PNM filed testimony indicating that: • PNM would not acquire the 65 MW of capacity in SJGS Unit 4 that was no longer anticipated to be acquired by the City of Farmington, as discussed under SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters below • PNM would not enter into a coal supply agreement for SJGS that extends beyond 2022 without NMPRC approval • PNM would have an ownership restructuring agreement for SJGS in place by May 1, 2015 If the stipulation is approved as filed, PNM anticipates it would incur a regulatory disallowance that would include the write-off of 50% of the undepreciated investment in SJGS Units 2 and 3, an offset to the regulatory disallowance to reflect including the investment in PVNGS Unit 3 in the ratemaking process at the stipulated value, and other impacts of the stipulation. Although PNM would record the regulatory disallowance upon approval by the NMPRC and satisfaction of any material conditions precedent, the amount of the disallowance would be dependent on the provisions of the NMPRC’s final order, as well as PNM’s projections of the December 31, 2017 net book values of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and PVNGS Unit 3. The amount initially recorded would be subject to adjustment to reflect changes in the projected December 31, 2017 net book values of the plants. Based on the provisions of the stipulation as filed and PNM’s current projection of December 31, 2017 book values, PNM estimates the net pre-tax regulatory disallowance would be between $60 million and $70 million . On April 8, 2015, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued a Certification of Stipulation, which recommends that the NMPRC reject the stipulation as proposed. The certification recommends that the abandonment of SJGS Units 2 and 3 be conditionally approved subject to PNM proposing adequate replacement capacity, approval of the CCN for PVNGS Unit 3 at its net book value on December 31, 2017, approval of recovery of an estimated $128.5 million , representing 50% of the remaining undepreciated investment in SJGS Units 2 and 3 at December 31, 2017, and denial of the CCN for the additional 132 MW of Unit 4 of SJGS. The certification states that PNM may re-apply for a CCN for the 132 MW after it has presented final restructuring and post-2017 coal supply agreements for SJGS. On April 20, 2015, PNM filed exceptions to the certification. PNM argued that the proposed modifications to the stipulation do not balance customer and shareholder interests, upset the balance contained in the stipulation, that the schedule recommended by the Hearing Examiner for PNM to file a replacement plan would effectively preclude the inclusion of the 132 MW of additional SJGS Unit 4 capacity in the replacement plan thereby jeopardizing the restructuring agreement and the continued operation of SJGS to the detriment of customers, and that the Hearing Examiner erred in recommending a lower rate base value for PNM’s share of PVNGS Unit 3. If the NMPRC issues an order that modifies the stipulation, any stipulating party can void the stipulation. The certification recommends that the parties be given seven days to decide whether to accept any modifications after the NMPRC issues an order. The NMPRC can approve, reject, or modify the certification. If the NMPRC were to issue an order adopting all of the modifications to the stipulation recommended by the Hearing Examiner, PNM estimates the net pre-tax regulatory disallowance referenced above would become an amount between $145 million and $155 million . On May 1, 2015, PNM filed with the NMPRC a notice of submittal of confidential, substantially final, unexecuted restructuring, coal supply, and related agreements for SJGS. See SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters and Coal Supply below. On May 27, 2015, the NMPRC issued an order requiring PNM to file executed restructuring and coal supply agreements by July 1, 2015. The order provided that PNM could request an extension of the required filing date to August 1, 2015 if such request was based on specific and verifiable facts. PNM subsequently requested an extension, citing that certain of the owners of SJGS were governmental entities and required the additional time in order to meet statutory public notice and meeting requirements. The NMPRC granted PNM an extension to August 1, 2015 to file the executed restructuring agreement. On July 1, 2015, PNM filed the executed coal supply and related agreements described under Coal Supply below with the NMPRC. On July 1, 2015, PNM also filed partially executed agreements related to restructuring discussed under SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters below. On July 31, 2015, PNM filed fully executed restructuring agreements, along with testimony supporting the agreements and a CCN for the 132 MW of additional SJGS Unit 4 capacity. In June 2015, a NMPRC Commissioner issued an order designating a facilitator to determine whether an uncontested settlement among some or all of the parties in this case could be accomplished. A mediation process is on-going. A public hearing on PNM’s application concerning BART for SJGS is scheduled to begin on September 30, 2015. Although PNM expects a decision from the NMPRC in the fourth quarter of 2015, PNM is unable to predict what action the NMPRC will take, whether any party will void the stipulation, or the ultimate outcome of this matter. SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters – As discussed in the 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K, SJGS is jointly owned by PNM and eight other entities, including three participants that operate in the State of California. Furthermore, each participant does not have the same ownership interest in each unit. The SJPPA that governs the operation of SJGS expires on July 1, 2022 and the currently effective contract with SJCC to supply the coal requirements of the plant expires on December 31, 2017. The California participants have indicated that, under California law, they may be prohibited from making significant capital improvements to SJGS. The California participants have stated they would be unable to fully fund the construction of either SCRs or SNCRs at SJGS and have expressed the intent to exit their ownership in SJGS no later than the expiration of the current SJPPA. One other participant also expressed a similar intent to exit ownership in the plant. The participants intending to exit ownership in SJGS currently own 50.0% of SJGS Unit 3 and 38.8% of SJGS Unit 4. PNM currently owns 50.0% of SJGS Unit 3 and 38.5% of SJGS Unit 4. The SJGS participants engaged in mediated negotiations concerning the implementation of the RSIP to address BART at SJGS. These negotiations initially included potential shifts in ownership among participants and between Units 3 and 4 that could have resulted in PNM acquiring additional ownership in Unit 4 prior to the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3. The discussions among the SJGS participants regarding restructuring also included, among other matters, the treatment of plant decommissioning obligations, mine reclamation obligations, environmental matters, and certain ongoing operating costs. On June 26, 2014, a non-binding resolution (the “Resolution”) was unanimously approved by the SJGS Coordination Committee. The Resolution identifies the participants who would be exiting active participation in SJGS effective December 31, 2017 and participants, including PNM, who would retain an interest in the ongoing operation of one or more units of SJGS. The Resolution provides the essential terms of restructured ownership of SJGS between the exiting participants and the remaining participants and addresses other related matters. The Resolution includes provisions indicating that the exiting participants would remain obligated for their proportionate shares of environmental, mine reclamation, and certain other legacy liabilities that are attributable to activities that occurred prior to their exit, as well as outlining how their shares would be determined. Also, on June 26, 2014, a non-binding term sheet was approved by all of the remaining participants that provides the essential terms of restructured ownership of SJGS among the remaining participants. As part of the non-binding terms, PNM confirmed that it would acquire an additional 132 MW in SJGS Unit 4 effective December 31, 2017. There would be no initial cost for PNM to acquire the additional 132 MW although PNM’s share of capital improvements, including the costs of installing SNCR and BDT equipment, and operating expenses would increase to reflect the increased ownership. The acquisition of 132 MW of SJGS Unit 4 would result in PNM’s ownership share of SJGS Unit 4 being 64.5% and of SJGS Units 1 and 4 aggregating 58.7% . On September 2, 2014, the SJGS Coordination Committee adopted a non-binding supplement to the Resolution, which provides for allocation of future costs of decommissioning among current SJGS owners using a time-based sliding scale and outlines indemnification obligations. The Resolution and the non-binding term sheet recognize that prior to executing a binding restructuring agreement, the remaining participants would need to have greater certainty in regard to the economic cost and availability of fuel for SJGS for the period after December 31, 2017. As discussed under Coal Supply below, on July 1, 2015, PNM entered into an agreement for the supply of coal to SJGS through June 30, 2022. In September 2014, the SJGS participants executed a binding Fuel and Capital Funding Agreement to implement certain provisions of the Resolution, including payment by the remaining participants of capital costs for the Unit 4 SNCR project starting July 1, 2014, and acquisition by PNM of the exiting participants’ coal inventory as of January 1, 2015. PNM filed the Fuel and Capital Funding Agreement with FERC on September 18, 2014, with a request for a retroactive effective date to July 1, 2014. FERC approved the request on November 13, 2014. On January 7, 2015, the City of Farmington, New Mexico, which has an ownership interest in Unit 4, notified the other participants that it will not acquire additional MWs in Unit 4, leaving 65 MWs in that unit unsubscribed. As discussed under NMPRC Filing above, PNM has indicated that it will not acquire any of the unsubscribed MWs. However, PNMR currently anticipates that PNMR Development would acquire the 65 MWs. The City of Farmington’s action was taken under the Fuel and Capital Funding Agreement and has the impact of negating certain provisions of that agreement, including the payment arrangement related to SNCRs and PNM’s acquisition of the exiting participants’ coal inventory described above, and reinstating the voting and capital improvement cost allocations under the current SJPPA. Accordingly, on February 3, 2015, PNM informed the participants in the Fuel and Capital Funding Agreement that the agreement would terminate by its terms no later than February 6, 2015. The City of Farmington and the other continuing participants in SJGS have indicated that they remain committed to on-going ownership in SJGS. On May 19, 2015, PNMR, PNM, PNMR Development, and the California owners of SJGS Unit 4 entered into a Capacity Option and Funding Agreement (“COFA”), which provides PNM and PNMR Development options to acquire 132 MW and 65 MW of the Unit 4 capacity currently owned by the California entities in exchange for PNM and PNMR Development funding the capital improvements related to Unit 4 effective as of January 1, 2015. PNMR’s current projection of capital expenditures includes those of PNMR Development for the 65 MW. PNMR guarantees the obligations of PNMR Development under the COFA. The COFA will terminate on the earliest of January 1, 2016, the effective date of a SJGS restructuring agreement, the date PNM notifies the other parties that it has failed to receive required regulatory approvals for the SJGS restructuring, the date any California owner opposes PNM’s application before the NMPRC, or the date PNM elects to terminate because ano |
