| 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. 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. 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 2017 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, which established a process for the payment of claims for costs incurred through December 31, 2016. The settlement agreement has been extended to December 31, 2019. 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 $57.7 million (in 2016 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, 2018 and December 31, 2017 , PNM had a liability for interim storage costs of $12.2 million and $12.3 million included in other deferred credits. 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. On June 8, 2012, the DC 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 DC 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 DC 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, which was issued in September 2013. 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. The August 2014 final rule has been subject to continuing legal challenges before the NRC and the United States Court of Appeals. On May 19, 2016, the NRC denied petitions filed by multiple petitioners to revise the August 2014 rule. The DC Circuit issued an order upholding the August 2014 rule on June 3, 2016 and denied a subsequent petition for rehearing on August 8, 2016. In 2011, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Nuclear Energy Institute challenged, in the DC Circuit, 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. On January 3, 2014, the DOE notified Congress of its intention to suspend collection of the one-mill fee, subject to Congress’ disapproval, as ordered by the DC Circuit. On May 16, 2014, the DOE adjusted the fee to zero . PNM cannot predict if there will be challenges to this action or the potential outcome of such challenges. 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 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, then 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. On January 10, 2017, EPA published in the Federal Register revisions to the regional haze rule. EPA also provided a companion draft guidance document for public comment. 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. On January 30, 2018, the court placed the case in abeyance and directed EPA to file status reports on 90-day intervals beginning April 30, 2018. Although EPA’s decision to revisit the rule is not a determination on the merits of the issues raised in those petitions, EPA is likely to propose and take comment on additional revisions to the regional haze rules in the near future. PNM is evaluating the potential impacts of this rule. SJGS BART Compliance – SJGS is a source that is subject to the statutory obligations of the CAA to reduce visibility impacts. Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2017 Annual Reports on Form 10-K contains detailed information concerning the BART compliance process, including interactions with governmental agencies responsible for environmental oversight and the NMPRC approval process. In December 2015, PNM received NMPRC approval for the plan to comply with the EPA regional haze rule at SJGS. Under the approved plan, the installation of selective non-catalytic reduction technology (“SNCR”) on SJGS Units 1 and 4 was completed in early 2016 and Units 2 and 3 were retired in December 2017. In addition to the required SNCR equipment, the NSR permit, which was required to be obtained in order to install the SNCRs, specified that SJGS Units 1 and 4 be converted to balanced draft technology (“BDT”). See Note 12 for information concerning the NMPRC’s treatment of BDT in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case. The December 2015 NMPRC order also provided, among other things, that: • PNM was granted a CCN to acquire an additional 132 MW in SJGS Unit 4 effective January 1, 2018 • PNM was granted a CCN for 134 MW of PVNGS Unit 3 as a jurisdictional resource to serve New Mexico customers beginning January 1, 2018 • No later than December 31, 2018, and before entering into a binding agreement for post-2022 coal supply for SJGS, PNM will file its position in a NMPRC case to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after mid-2022; all parties to the stipulation agree to support this case being decided within six months (see Other SJGS Matters below and Note 12) • PNM was authorized to acquire 65 MW of SJGS Unit 4 as merchant plant NEE filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court of the NMPRC’s December 2015 order alleging that the NMPRC’s decision violated New Mexico statutes and NMPRC regulations because PNM did not adequately consider replacement resources other than those proposed by PNM, the NMPRC did not require PNM to adequately address and mitigate ratepayer risk, the NMPRC unlawfully shifted the burden of proof, and the NMPRC’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. The parties presented oral argument to the court on January 25, 2017. On March 5, 2018, the NM Supreme Court issued its opinion affirming the NMPRC’s December 2015 order, thereby denying NEE’s appeal. A request for rehearing of the NM Supreme Court’s decision was not filed by the statutory deadline. This matter is now concluded. NEE Complaint – On March 31, 2016, NEE filed a complaint with the NMPRC against PNM regarding the financing provided by NM Capital to facilitate the sale of SJCC (see Coal Supply below). The complaint alleges that PNM failed to comply with its discovery obligation in the SJGS abandonment case and requests the NMPRC investigate whether the financing transactions could adversely affect PNM’s ability to provide electric service to its retail customers. PNM responded to the complaint on May 4, 2016. On January 31, 2018, NEE filed a motion asking the NMPRC to investigate whether PNM’s relationship with WSJ, in light of Westmoreland’s financial condition, could be harmful to PNM’s customers. PNM responded requesting the NMPRC deny the motion and that NEE’s prior complaint be dismissed. The NMPRC has taken no action on these matters. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of these matters. SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters – As discussed in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2017 Annual Reports on Form 10-K, SJGS was jointly owned by PNM and eight other entities. The SJPPA that governs the operation of SJGS expires on July 1, 2022. In connection with the plan to comply with EPA regional haze rules at SJGS, some of the SJGS participants expressed a desire to exit their ownership in the plant. As a result, the SJGS participants negotiated a restructuring of the ownership in SJGS and addressed the obligations of the exiting participants for plant decommissioning, mine reclamation, environmental matters, and certain future operating costs, among other items. On July 31, 2015, the SJGS participants executed the San Juan Project Restructuring Agreement (“SJGS RA”). The SJGS RA provides the essential terms of restructured ownership and addresses other related matters, including that the exiting participants 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. The SJGS RA became effective contemporaneously with the effectiveness of the new SJGS CSA. The effectiveness of the new SJGS CSA was dependent on the closing of the purchase of the existing coal mine operation by a new mine operator, which occurred on January 31, 2016 as discussed in Coal Supply below. Other SJGS Matters – Although the SJGS RA results in an agreement among the SJGS participants enabling compliance with current CAA requirements, it is possible that the financial impact of climate change regulation or legislation, other environmental regulations, the result of litigation, and other business considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of SJGS or the ability or willingness of individual participants to continue participation in the plant. PNM’s 2017 IRP (Note 12) filed with the NMPRC on July 3, 2017 presented resource portfolio plans for scenarios that assumed SJGS will operate beyond the end of the current coal supply agreement that runs through June 30, 2022 and for scenarios that assumed SJGS will cease operations after mid-2022. The 2017 IRP data shows that retiring SJGS in 2022 would provide long-term cost benefits to PNM’s customers. Four Corners On August 6, 2012, EPA issued its Four Corners FIP with a final BART determination for Four Corners. The rule included two compliance alternatives. On December 30, 2013, APS notified EPA that the Four Corners participants selected the alternative that required APS to permanently close Units 1, 2, and 3 by January 1, 2014 and install SCR post-combustion NOx controls on each of Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018. Installation of SCRs on Four Corners Unit 5 was completed in March 2018 and the installation on Unit 4 is anticipated to be completed in May 2018. PNM owns a 13% interest in Units 4 and 5, but had no ownership interest in Units 1, 2, and 3, which were shut down by APS on December 30, 2013. For particulate matter emissions, EPA is requiring Units 4 and 5 to meet an emission limit of 0.015 lbs/MMBTU and the plant to meet a 20% opacity limit, both of which are achievable through operation of the existing baghouses. Although unrelated to BART, the final BART rule also imposes a 20% opacity limitation on certain fugitive dust emissions from Four Corners’ coal and material handling operations. PNM estimates its share of costs for post-combustion controls at Four Corners Units 4 and 5 to be up to $89.0 million , including amounts incurred through March 31, 2018 and PNM’s AFUDC. See Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2017 Annual Reports on Form 10-K and Note 12 for a discussion of the treatment of these costs in PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case. The Four Corners participants’ obligations to comply with EPA’s final BART determinations, coupled with the financial impact of climate change regulation or legislation, other environmental regulations, and other business or regulatory considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of Four Corners or the ability of individual participants to continue their participation in Four Corners. Four Corners Federal Agency Lawsuit – On April 20, 2016, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit against OSM and other federal agencies in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in connection with their issuance of the approvals that extended the life of Four Corners and the adjacent mine. The lawsuit alleges that these federal agencies violated both the ESA and NEPA in providing the federal approvals necessary to extend operations at Four Corners and the adjacent mine past July 6, 2016. The court granted an APS motion to intervene in the litigation on August 3, 2016. On September 15, 2016, NTEC, the current owner of the mine providing coal to Four Corners, filed a motion to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking dismissal of the lawsuit based on NTEC’s tribal sovereign immunity. On September 11, 2017, the court granted NTEC’s motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, terminating the proceedings. The environmental group plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissed order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 9, 2017. PNM cannot predict if such appeal will be successful and, if it is successful, the outcome of further district court proceedings. Carbon Dioxide Emissions On August 3, 2015, EPA established final standards to limit CO 2 emissions from power plants. EPA took three separate but related actions in which it: (1) established the final carbon pollution standards for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants; (2) established the final Clean Power Plan to set standards for carbon emission reductions from existing power plants; and (3) released a proposed federal plan associated with the final Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan was published on October 23, 2015. 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. Numerous parties also simultaneously filed motions to stay the Clean Power Plan during the litigation. On January 21, 2016, the DC Circuit denied petitions to stay the Clean Power Plan, but 29 states and state agencies successfully petitioned the US Supreme Court for a stay, which was granted on February 9, 2016. The decision means the Clean Power Plan is not in effect and neither states nor sources are obliged to comply with its requirements. With the US Supreme Court stay in place, the DC Circuit heard oral arguments on the merits of the Clean Power Plan on September 27, 2016 in front of a ten judge en banc panel. However, before the DC Circuit could issue an opinion, the Trump Administration asked that the case be held in abeyance while the rule is re-evaluated, which was granted. On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Energy Independence. The order puts forth two general policies: promote clean and safe development of energy resources, while avoiding regulatory burdens, and ensure electricity is affordable, reliable, safe, secure, and clean. The order directs the EPA Administrator to immediately review and, if appropriate and consistent with law, suspend, revise, or rescind (1) the Clean Power Plan, (2) the NSPS for GHG from new, reconstructed, or modified electric generating units, (3) the Proposed Clean Power Plan Model Trading Rules, and (4) the Legal Memorandum supporting the Clean Power Plan. It also directs the EPA Administrator to notify the US Attorney General of his intent to review rules subject to pending litigation so that the US Attorney General may notify the court and, in his discretion, request that the court delay further litigation pending completion of the reviews. In response to the Executive Order, EPA filed a petition with the DC Circuit requesting the cases challenging the Clean Power Plan be held in abeyance until 30 days after the conclusion of EPA’s review and any subsequent rulemaking, which was granted. In addition, the DC Circuit issued a similar order in connection with a motion filed by EPA to hold cases challenging the NSPS in abeyance. On October 10, 2017, EPA issued a NOPR proposing to repeal the Clean Power Plan and filed its status report with the court requesting the case be held in abeyance until the completion of the rulemaking on the proposed repeal. The NOPR proposes a legal interpretation concluding that the Clean Power Plan exceeds EPA’s statutory authority. Under the proposed interpretation, Section 111(d) limits EPA’s authority to adopt performance standards to only those physical and operational changes that can be implemented within an individual source. Therefore, measures in the Clean Power Plan that would require power generators to change their energy portfolios by shifting generation from coal to gas and from fossil fuel to renewable energy exceed EPA’s statutory authority. The NOPR was published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2017 and comments were due by April 26, 2018. Any final rule will be subject to judicial review. In a separate but related action, on December 28, 2017, EPA published the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for replacement of the Clean Power Plan. EPA indicated it has not determined whether it will promulgate a new rule under section 111(d) or what form a new rule would take. Comments to EPA’s new rule were due by February 26, 2018. The proposed federal plan released concurrently with the Clean Power Plan is important to Four Corners and the Navajo Nation. Since the Navajo Nation does not have primacy over its air quality program, EPA would be the regulatory authority responsible for implementing the Clean Power Plan on the Navajo Nation if the Clean Power Plan is ultimately sustained. In addition, the proposed rule recommended that EPA determine it is “necessary or appropriate” for EPA to regulate CO 2 emissions on the Navajo Nation. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on January 21, 2016. APS and PNM filed separate comments with EPA on EPA’s draft plan and model trading rules, advocating that such a federal plan is neither necessary nor appropriate to protect air quality on the Navajo Nation. PNM is unable to predict the financial or operational impacts on Four Corners operations if the Clean Power Plan is ultimately implemented as proposed and EPA determines that a federal plan is necessary or appropriate for the Navajo Nation. PNM’s review of the CO 2 emission reductions standards under the Clean Power Plan is ongoing and the assessment of its impacts will depend on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, future GHG reduction rulemaking, litigation of any final rule, and other actions the Trump Administration is taking through judicial and regulatory proceedings. Accordingly, 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 considered harmful to public health and the environment. EPA has set NAAQS for certain pollutants, including NOx, SO 2 , ozone, and particulate matter. In 2010, EPA updated the primary NOx and SO 2 NAAQS to include a 1-hour maximum standard while retaining the annual standards for NOx and SO 2 and the 24-hour SO 2 standard. New Mexico is in attainment for the 1-hour NOx NAAQS. On May 13, 2014, EPA released the draft data requirements rule for the 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS, which directs state and tribal air agencies to characterize current air quality in areas with large SO 2 sources to identify maximum 1-hour SO 2 concentrations. The proposed rule also describes the process and timetable by which air regulatory agencies would characterize air quality around large SO 2 sources through ambient monitoring or modeling. This characterization will result in these areas being designated as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for compliance with the 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. On March 2, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a settlement that imposes deadlines for EPA to identify areas that violate the NAAQS standards for 1-hour SO 2 emissions. The settlement results from a lawsuit brought by Earthjustice on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council under the CAA. The consent decree requires the following: (1) within 16 months of the consent decree entry, EPA must issue area designations for areas containing non-retiring facilities that either emitted more than 16,000 tons of SO 2 in 2012 or emitted more than 2,600 tons with an emission rate of 0.45 lbs/MMBTU or higher in 2012; (2) by December 2017, EPA must issue designations for areas for which states have not adopted a new monitoring network under the proposed data requirements rule; and (3) by December 2020, EPA must issue designations for areas for which states have adopted a new monitoring network under the proposed data requirements rule. SJGS and Four Corners SO 2 emissions are below the thresholds set forth in (1) above. EPA regions sent letters to state environmental agencies explaining how EPA plans to implement the consent decree. The letters outline the schedule that EPA expects states to follow in moving forward with new SO 2 non-attainment designations. NMED did not receive a letter. On August 11, 2015, EPA released the Data Requirements Rule for SO 2 , telling states how to model or monitor to determine attainment or nonattainment with the new 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. On June 3, 2016, NMED notified PNM that air quality modeling results indicated that SJGS was in compliance with the standard. In January 2017, NMED submitted their formal modeling report regarding attainment status to EPA. The modeling indicated that no area in New Mexico exceeds the 1-hour SO 2 standard. In July of each year, NMED will submit an annual report to EPA documenting annual SO 2 emissions from SJGS and the associated compliance status. On May 14, 2015, PNM received an amendment to its NSR air permit for SJGS, which reflects the revised state implementation plan for regional haze BART and requires the installation of SNCRs as described above. The revised permit also requires the reduction of SO 2 emissions to 0.10 pound per MMBTU on SJGS Units 1 and 4 and the installation of BDT equipment modifications for the purpose of reducing fugitive emissions, including NOx, SO 2, and particulate matter. These reductions should help SJGS meet the NAAQS for these constituents. The BDT equipment modifications were installed at the same time as the SNCRs, in order to most efficiently and cost effectively conduct construction activities at SJGS. See Regional Haze – SJGS above. On October 1, 2015, EPA finalized the new ozone NAAQS and lowered both the primary and secondary 8-hour standard from 75 parts per billion (“ppb”) to 70 ppb. With ozone standards becoming more stringent, fossil-fueled generation units will come under increasing pressure to reduce emissions of NOx and volatile organic compounds, and to generate emission offsets for new projects or facility expansions located in nonattainment areas. 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 new more stringent ozone NAAQS final rule since western states like New Mexico and Arizona are particularly subject to elevated background ozone transport from natural local sources, such as wildfires, and transported via winds from distant sources, such as the stratosphere or another region or country. On February 25, 2016, EPA released guidance on area designations, which states used to determine their initial designation recommendations by October 1, 2016. EPA recommended that states and tribes use the three most recent years of quality assured monitoring data available (e.g., 2013 to 2015) to recommend designations. In their submittals, states and tribes were also able to use preliminary 2016 data. EPA was expected to release final designations of attainment/nonattainment for areas by October 1, 2017. On June 6, 2017, the EPA Administrator sent letters to state governors announcing that EPA was extending, by one year, the deadline for promulgating area designations. However, on August 2, 2017, the Trump Administration reversed the decision to extend the deadline to issue area designations, thereby requiring EPA to issue designations for ozone attainment areas by October 1, 2017. NMED published its 2015 Ozone NAAQS Designation Recommendation Report on September 2, 2016. In New Mexico, NMED is designating only a small area in southern Dona Ana County as non-attainment for ozone. NMED will have responsibility for bringing this non-attainment area into compliance and will look at all sources of NOx and volatile organic compounds since these are the pollutants that form ground-level ozone. According to NMED’s website, “If emissions from Mexico keep New Mexico from meeting the standards, the New Mexico area could remain non-attainment but would not face more stringent requirements over time.” On November 6, 2017, EPA released a final rule establishing some, but not all, initial area designations. In that final rule, EPA designated 2,646 counties (representing about 85% of the counties in the United States) as attainment/unclassifiable, and three counties in Washington as unclassifiable. San Juan County, New Mexico, where SJGS and Four Corners are located, is designated as attainment/unclassifiable. On December 21, 2017, EPA issued a notice of availability of its intended designations for the remaining undesignated areas. EPA stated that it intended to address the remaining areas in a separate future action, but did not specify a time frame for doing so. Under the CAA, EPA was required to promulgate area designations no later than October 1, 2017. The notice announces the availability of “ 120 -day letters,” which were sent directly to states and tribes on December 20, 2017, and contain EPA’s intended air quality designations for the remaining areas. The only county in New Mexico designated as non-attainment is Dona Ana County. States and tribes were required to provide EPA any additional information they would like EPA to consider by February 28, 2018. EPA intends to make final designations for all areas addressed in the 120 - |
