UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
(Mark One)
x
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20152016
OR
¨
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from                     to                     . 
Commission File Number 1-5924
TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Arizona
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
 
86-0062700
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
88 East Broadway Boulevard, Tucson, AZ 85701
(Address of principal executive offices)(Zip Code)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (520) 571-4000
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act: None
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act:
Common Stock, without par value
(Title of Class)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Yes  ¨
 
No  x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).
Yes  ¨
 
No  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes  x
 
No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).




Yes  x
 
No  ¨




Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of each registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large Accelerated Filer¨Accelerated Filer¨Non-accelerated FilerxSmaller Reporting Company¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes  ¨
 
 No  x

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates: None
As of February 17, 2016,15, 2017, Tucson Electric Power Company had 32,139,434 shares of common stock, no par value, outstanding, all of which were held by UNS Energy Corporation, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis Inc.

Documents incorporated by reference: None
Tucson Electric Power meets the conditions set forth in General Instruction I(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-K and is therefore filing portions of this Form 10-K with the reduced disclosure format specified in General Instruction I(2) of Form 10-K.



ii




Table of Contents
PART I
  
  
PART II
  
  
PART III

iii




PART III
  
  
PART IV
  

iv




DEFINITIONS
The abbreviations and acronyms used in the 20152016 Form 10-K are defined below:
2010 Credit AgreementThe 2010 Credit Agreement consisted of a $200 million revolving credit and letter of credit facility together with an $82 million LOC facility to support tax-exempt bonds; terminated in October 2015 when replaced by the 2015 Credit Agreement
2010 Reimbursement Agreement Reimbursement Agreement, dated December 14, 2010, between TEP, as borrower, and a financial institution
2013 Covenants AgreementA Lender Rate Mode Covenants Agreement between TEP and the purchaser of $100 million of unsecured tax-exempt bonds that were issued on behalf of TEP in November 2013 and sold in a private placement
2013 TEP Rate Order A rate order issued by the ACC resulting in a new rate structure for TEP, effective July 1, 2013
2014 Credit AgreementThe 2014 Credit Agreement consisted of a $130 million term loan commitment and a $70 million revolving credit commitment; terminated in June 2015
2015 Credit AgreementThe 2015 Credit Agreement provides for a $250 million revolving credit and letter of credit facility with a sublimit of $50 million; the credit agreement matures in 2020 and replaced the 2010 Credit Agreement
2015 TEP2017 Rate CaseOrder A pending general rate case filed withorder issued by the ACC byresulting in a new rate structure for TEP, in November 2015 requesting new rates effective Januaryon or before on or before March 1, 2017
ACC Arizona Corporation Commission
APS Arizona Public Service Company
BART Best Available Retrofit Technology
Base RatesBBtu The portion of TEP’s Retail Rates attributed to generation, transmission, distribution, and customer costs. Base Rates exclude authorized charges designed to recover specific costs that are passed through to customers including fuel and purchased power costs, energy efficiency program costs, certain environmental compliance costs, and a portion of renewable energy costsBillion British thermal unit(s)
Cooling Degree DaysCDD AnCooling Degrees Days is an index used to measure the impact of weather on energypower usage calculated by subtracting 75 from the average of the high and low daily temperatures
DGDistributed Generation
DSM Demand Side Management
EE Standards Energy Efficiency Standards
EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Fortis Fortis Inc., a corporation incorporated under the Corporations Act of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, whose principal executive offices are located at Fortis Place, Suite 1100, 5 Springdale Street, St. John's, NL A1E 0E4
Four Corners Four Corners Generating Station
GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States of America
GBtuGila River Billion British thermal unitsGila River Generating Station
GWh Gigawatt-hour(s)
Gila River Unit 3HDD Unit 3 of the Gila River Generating Station
Heating DegreeDegrees DaysAn is an index used to measure the impact of weather on energypower usage calculated by subtracting the average of the high and low daily temperatures from 65
kV Kilo-volt(s)
kWh Kilowatt-hour(s)
LFCR Lost Fixed Cost Recovery
LOC LetterLetter(s) of Credit
LunaLuna Generating Station
MATSMercury and Air Toxics Standards
MMBtuMillion British thermal units
MW Megawatt(s)
MWh Megawatt-hour(s)
Navajo Navajo Generating Station
NBVNet Book Value
PNM Public Service Company of New Mexico
PPA Power Purchase Agreement
PPFAC Purchased Power and Fuel Adjustment Clause
ppbParts per billion

v




REC Renewable Energy Credit
Regional Haze RulesRules promulgated by the EPA to improve visibility at national parks and wilderness areas
RES Renewable Energy Standard
Retail Rates Rates designed to allow a regulated utility to recover its costs of providing services and an opportunity to recover its reasonable operating and capital costs and earn a reasonable return on its utility plant in serviceinvestment
San Juan San Juan Generating Station
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction

v




SESSouthwest Energy Solutions, Inc.
SJCC San Juan Coal Company
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
Springerville Springerville Generating Station
Springerville Coal Handling FacilitiesCoal handling facilities at Springerville used by all four Springerville units
Springerville Coal Handling Facilities LeasesLeases for coal handling facilities at Springerville used in common by all four Springerville units
Springerville Common FacilitiesFacilities at Springerville used in common by Springerville Units 1 and 2
Springerville Common Facilities LeasesLeveraged lease arrangements relating to an undivided one-half interest in Springerville Common Facilities
Springerville Unit 1Unit 1 of the Springerville Generating Station
Springerville Unit 1 Leases
Leveraged lease arrangement relating to Springerville Unit 1 and an
undivided one-half interest in certain Springerville Common Facilities
Springerville Unit 2Unit 2 of the Springerville Generating Station
Springerville Unit 3Unit 3 of the Springerville Generating Station
Springerville Unit 4Unit 4 of the Springerville Generating Station
SRP Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District
Sundt H. Wilson Sundt Generating Station
Sundt Unit 4Unit 4 of the H. Wilson Sundt Generating Station
TEP Tucson Electric Power Company, the principal subsidiary of UNS Energy Corporation
Third-Party Owners Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-trustee under a separate trust agreement with each of the remaining two owner participants, Alterna Springerville LLC (Alterna) and LDVF1 TEP LLC (LDVF1) (Alterna and LDVF1, together with the Owner Trustees and Co-trustees, the Third-Party Owners)
TSATransmission Service Agreement
Tri-State Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
UESUniSource Energy Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of UNS Energy Corporation, and intermediate holding company established to own the operating companies UNS Electric, Inc. and UNS Gas, Inc.
UNS Electric UNS Electric, Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of UNS Energy Corporation
UNS Energy UNS Energy Corporation, the parent company of TEP, whose principal executive offices are located at 88 East Broadway Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona 85701
UNS Energy AffiliatesAffiliated subsidiaries of UNS Energy Corporation including UniSource Energy Services Inc., UNS Electric, Inc., UNS Gas, Inc., and Southwest Energy Solutions, Inc.
UNS Gas UNS Gas, Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of UNS Energy


vi




FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements as defined by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP)(TEP or the Company) is including the following cautionary statements to make applicable and take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 for any forward-looking statements made by or for TEP in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Forward-looking statements include statements concerning plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events, future operational, economic, or financial performance and underlying assumptions, and other statements that are not statements of historical facts. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of words such as anticipates, believes, estimates, expects, intends, may, plans, predicts, projects, would, and similar expressions. From time to time, we may publish or otherwise make available forward-looking statements of this nature. All such forward-looking statements, whether written or oral, and whether made by or on behalf of TEP, are expressly qualified by these cautionary statements and any other cautionary statements which may accompany the forward-looking statements. In addition, TEP disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this report, except as may otherwise be required by the federal securities laws.
Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed therein. We express our estimates, expectations, beliefs, and projections in good faith and believe them to have a reasonable basis. However, we make no assurances that management’s estimates, expectations, beliefs or projections will be achieved or accomplished. We have identified the following important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed in our forward-looking statements. These may be in addition to other factors and matters discussed in: Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors; Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations; and other parts of this report. These factors include: state and federal regulatory and legislative decisions and actions;actions, including changes in tax policies; changes in, and compliance with, environmental laws and regulations, decisions and policies that could increase operating and capital costs, reduce generatinggeneration facility output or accelerate generatinggeneration facility retirements; regional economic and market conditions which could affect customer growth and energy usage; changes in energy consumption by retail customers; weather variations affecting energy usage; the cost of debt and equity capital and access to capital markets and bank markets; the performance of the stock market and changing interest rate environment, which affect the value of our pension and other retiree benefit plan assets and the related contribution requirements and expense; the potential inability to make additions to our existing high voltage transmission system; unexpected increases in O&Moperations and maintenance expense; resolution of pending litigation matters; changes in accounting standards; changes in our critical accounting policies and estimates; the ongoing impact of mandated energy efficiency and distributed generation initiatives; changes to long-term contracts; the cost of fuel and power supplies; the ability to obtain coal from our suppliers; cyber attacks, data breaches, or other challenges to our information security;security, including our operations and technology systems; and the performance of TEP's generating plants.generation facilities.


vii




PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

GENERAL
Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP)OVERVIEW OF BUSINESS
General
TEP and its predecessor companies have served the greater Tucson metropolitan area for over 100almost 125 years. TEP was incorporated in the State of Arizona in 1963. TEP is a regulated electric utility company serving approximately 417,000420,000 retail customers. TEP’s service territory covers 1,155 square miles and includes a population of approximately one million1,200,000 people in Pima County, as well as parts of Cochise County. TEP's principal business operations include generating, transmitting, and distributing electricity to its retail customers. In addition to retail sales, TEP sells electricity, transmission, and ancillary services to other utilities, municipalities, and energy marketing companies on a wholesale basis. TEP is subject to comprehensive state and federal regulation. The regulated electric utility operation is TEP's only segment.
TEP is a wholly owned subsidiary of UNS Energy Corporation (UNS Energy), a utility services holding company. In August 2014, UNS Energy was acquired by Fortis Inc. (Fortis) and became an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis which is a leader in the North American electric and gas utility business.
REGULATED UTILITY OPERATIONSRegulated Utility Operations
TEP delivers electricity to retail customers in southern Arizona. TEP owns or has contracts for coal, natural gas, wind, solar, and landfill gassolar generation resources to provide electricity. This electricity, together with electricity purchased on the wholesale market, is delivered over transmission lines which are part of the Western Interconnection, a regional grid in the United States. The electricity is then transformed to lower voltages and delivered to customers through TEP's distribution system.
TEP operates under a certificate of public convenience and necessity as regulated by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), under which TEP is obligated to provide electricity service to customers within its service territory. The ACC establishes retailRetail rates on a cost-of-service basis, which are rates designed to allow TEPa regulated utility to recover its costs of providing services and an opportunity to earn a reasonable return on its investment.investment (Retail Rates). The ACC establishes Retail Rates.

1



CUSTOMERSCustomers
Electricity sold to retail and wholesale customers by class of customer and the average number of retail customers over the last three years were as follows:
 2015 2014 2013
Electric Sales - GWh           
Residential3,724 28% 3,727 29% 3,867 30%
Commercial2,124 15% 2,170 17% 2,187 17%
Industrial (Non-mining)2,063 15% 2,098 16% 2,114 17%
Mining1,109 8% 1,137 9% 1,079 9%
Other33 % 33 % 32 %
Total Electric Retail Sales9,053 66% 9,165 71% 9,279 73%
Electric Wholesale Sales - Long-Term750 5% 618 5% 605 5%
Electric Wholesale Sales - Short-Term3,928 29% 3,082 24% 2,859 22%
Total Electric Sales13,731 100% 12,865 100% 12,743 100%
            
Average Number of Retail Customers:           
Residential376,439 90% 374,204 90% 370,925 90%
Commercial38,253 9% 38,079 9% 37,783 9%
Industrial (Non-mining)588 % 604 % 622 %
Mining4 % 4 % 4 %
Other1,857 1% 1,858 1% 1,843 1%
Total Retail Customers417,141 100% 414,749 100% 411,177 100%
(sales in GWh)2016 2015 2014
Electric Sales           
Residential3,724 29% 3,724 28% 3,727 29%
Commercial2,139 17% 2,124 15% 2,170 17%
Industrial, non-Mining2,006 16% 2,063 15% 2,098 16%
Industrial, Mining997 8% 1,109 8% 1,137 9%
Other30 % 33 % 33 %
Total Retail Sales by Customer Class8,896 70% 9,053 66% 9,165 71%
Long-Term Wholesale Sales463 4% 750 5% 618 5%
Short-Term Wholesale Sales3,308 26% 3,928 29% 3,082 24%
Total Electric Sales12,667 100% 13,731 100% 12,865 100%
            
Average Number of Retail Customers           
Residential378,991 90% 376,439 90% 374,204 90%
Commercial38,403 9% 38,253 9% 38,079 9%
Industrial, non-Mining580 % 588 % 604 %
Industrial, Mining4 % 4 % 4 %
Other1,866 1% 1,857 1% 1,858 1%
Total Retail Customers419,844 100% 417,141 100% 414,749 100%


Retail Customers
TEP provides electric utility service to a diverse group of residential, commercial, industrial, and public sector customers. Major industries served include copper mining, cement manufacturing, defense, health care, education, military bases, and other governmental entities. TEP’s retail sales are influenced by several factors including economic conditions, seasonal weather patterns, Demand Side Management (DSM) initiatives and the increasing use of energy efficient products, and customer owned distributed generation.customer-sited Distributed Generation (DG).
Local, regional, and national economic factors impact the growth in the number of customers in TEP’s service territory. In each of the past five years, TEP’s average number of retail customers increased by less than 1%. TEP expects the number of retail customers to increase at a rate of approximately 1% in 20162017 based on the estimated population growth in its service territory.
TEP’s retail sales volume in 20152016 was approximately 9,0538,896 gigawatt-hours (GWh), which is a decrease of 3%4% from 20112012 levels. During the past five years, local economic conditions combined with state requirements to reduce retail sales through energy efficiency and distributed generationDG have resulted in lower sales volumes and lower use per customer.
Two of TEP’s largest retail customers are in the copper mining industry. TEP’s GWh sales to mining customers depend on a variety of factors including commodity prices, the electricity rate paid by mining customers,prices, and the mines’ development of their own electric generationself-generating resources. TEP’s GWh sales to mining customers decreased by 2%10% in 20152016 as a result of mining curtailments due to declining commodity prices. In 2016, TEP expects additional curtailments to certain mining customers based on announced plans and current commodity prices. TEP cannot predict how long the commodity prices will remain low or the impact prices will have on mining production.production and any resulting impact commodity prices may have on TEP's GWh sales.
See Part II, Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Factors Affecting Results of Operations of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding mining customers.

2



Wholesale SalesCustomers
TEP’s electric utility operations include the wholesale marketing of electricity to other utilities and power marketers. Wholesale sales transactions are made on both a firm and interruptible basis. A firm contract requires TEP to supply power on demand (except under limited emergency circumstances), while an interruptible contract allows TEP to stop supplying power under defined conditions.
Generally, TEP commits to future sales based on expected generatinggeneration capability, forward prices, and generation costs using a diversified portfolio approach to provide a balance between long-term, mid-term, and spot energy sales. TEP’s wholesale sales consist primarily of two types:
Long-Term Wholesale Sales
Long-termContracts for long-term wholesale contractssales cover periods of one year or greater. TEP typically uses its own generation to serve the requirements of its long-term wholesale customers. In 2015,
TEP’s primary long-term contracts werewholesale contract with Salt River Project AgricultureAgricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP), Shell Energy North America (Shell), the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA), and TRICO Electric Cooperative (TRICO). The SRP contract expires expired in May 2016, the Shell contract expires in December 2017, the NTUA contract expires in December 2022, and the TRICO contract expires in December 2024.
In November 2015, TEP entered into a2016. TEP's current primary long-term wholesale sales contract with Navopache Electric Cooperative (Navopache). Delivery of power begins January 1, 2017 and expiressale contracts customers are presented in December 2041.the table below:
Contracts Expire
December 31,
Shell Energy North America2017
Navajo Tribal Utility Authority2022
TRICO Electric Cooperative2024
Navopache Electric Cooperative2041
Short-Term Wholesale Sales
Forward contracts commit TEP to sell a specified amount of capacity or energypower at a specified price over a given period of time, typically for one-month or three-month periods. TEP also engages in short-term sales by selling energypower in the daily or hourly markets at fluctuating spot market prices and making other non-firm energypower sales. The majority of our revenues from short-term wholesale sales offset fuel and purchased power costs and are passed through to TEP’s retail customers. TEP uses short-term wholesale sales as part of its hedging strategy to reduce customer exposure to fluctuating power prices.


Competition
Retail Customers
TEP is the primary electric service provider to retail customers within its service territory and operates under a certificate of public convenience and necessity as regulated by the ACC. TEP is subject to competition from customer-sited distributed generation, energy efficiency, and other emerging technologies. TEP is experiencing increases in the levels of customer-sited solar arrays and the use of net energy metering, which allows self-generating retail customers to use their excess generation to offset a portion of their future electricity consumption at the full retail rate.
Wholesale SalesCustomers
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates rates for wholesale power sales and transmission services. TEP'sTEP engages in long-term wholesale activity primarily consists of Short-Term Wholesale Sales to manage fuel and purchased power supplies to serve retail customer energy requirements and Long-Term Wholesale Salessales to optimize its generation capacity.resources. As a result of its wholesale power activity, TEP competes with other utilities, power marketers, and independent power producers in the wholesale markets.

3



GENERATING FACILITIESGeneration Facilities
As of December 31, 20152016, TEP owned 2,5012,696 megawatts (MW) of nominal generatinggeneration capacity, as set forth in the following table. Nominal capacity is based on unit design net output.output, and measured in direct current (DC).
 Unit Date Resource Capacity Operating TEP’s ShareUnit Date Resource Capacity Operating TEP’s Share
Generating Source No. Location In Service Type MW Agent % 
MW (1)
Generation SourceNo. Location In Service Type MW Agent % MW
Springerville Station(1) 1 Springerville, AZ 1985 Coal 387
 TEP 49.5
 192
1 Springerville, AZ 1985 Coal 387 TEP 100 387
Springerville Station(2) 2 Springerville, AZ 1990 Coal 406
 TEP 100
 406
2 Springerville, AZ 1990 Coal 406 TEP 100 406
San Juan Station 1 Farmington, NM 1976 Coal 340
 PNM 50.0
 170
1 Farmington, NM 1976 Coal 340 PNM 50.0 170
San Juan Station 2 Farmington, NM 1973 Coal 340
 PNM 50.0
 170
2 Farmington, NM 1973 Coal 340 PNM 50.0 170
Navajo Station 1 Page, AZ 1974 Coal 750
 SRP 7.5
 56
1 Page, AZ 1974 Coal 750 SRP 7.5 56
Navajo Station 2 Page, AZ 1975 Coal 750
 SRP 7.5
 56
2 Page, AZ 1975 Coal 750 SRP 7.5 56
Navajo Station 3 Page, AZ 1976 Coal 750
 SRP 7.5
 56
3 Page, AZ 1976 Coal 750 SRP 7.5 56
Four Corners Station 4 Farmington, NM 1969 Coal 785
 APS 7.0
 55
4 Farmington, NM 1969 Coal 785 APS 7.0 55
Four Corners Station 5 Farmington, NM 1970 Coal 785
 APS 7.0
 55
5 Farmington, NM 1970 Coal 785 APS 7.0 55
Gila River Power Station 3 Gila Bend, AZ 2003 Gas 550
 Ethos Energy 75.0
 413
3 Gila Bend, AZ 2003 Gas 550 Ethos Energy 75.0 413
Luna Generating Station 1 Deming, NM 2006 Gas 555
 PNM 33.3
 185
1 Deming, NM 2006 Gas 555 PNM 33.3 185
Sundt Station 1 Tucson, AZ 1958 Gas/Oil 81
 TEP 100
 81
1 Tucson, AZ 1958 Gas/Oil 81 TEP 100 81
Sundt Station 2 Tucson, AZ 1960 Gas/Oil 81
 TEP 100
 81
2 Tucson, AZ 1960 Gas/Oil 81 TEP 100 81
Sundt Station 3 Tucson, AZ 1962 Gas/Oil 104
 TEP 100
 104
3 Tucson, AZ 1962 Gas 104 TEP 100 104
Sundt Station (2)
 4 Tucson, AZ 1967 Gas 156
 TEP 100
 156
4 Tucson, AZ 1967 Gas 156 TEP 100 156
Sundt Internal Combustion Turbines Tucson, AZ 1972-1973 Gas/Oil 50
 TEP 100
 50
 Tucson, AZ 1972-1973 Gas/Oil 50 TEP 100 50
DeMoss Petrie Tucson, AZ 2001 Gas 75
 TEP 100
 75
 Tucson, AZ 2001 Gas 75 TEP 100 75
North Loop Tucson, AZ 2001 Gas 94
 TEP 100
 94
 Tucson, AZ 2001 Gas 94 TEP 100 94
Springerville Solar Station Springerville, AZ 2002-2014 Solar 16
 TEP 100
 16
 Springerville, AZ 2002-2014 Solar 16 TEP 100 16
Tucson Solar Projects Tucson, AZ 2010-2014 Solar 13
 TEP 100
 13
 Tucson, AZ 2010-2014 Solar 13 TEP 100 13
Ft. Huachuca Project(3) Ft. Huachuca, AZ 2014 Solar 17
 TEP 100
 17
 Ft. Huachuca, AZ 2014 Solar 17 TEP 100 17
Total TEP Capacity (3)(4)
     2,501
 2,696
(1) 
Capacity measured
In 2016, TEP purchased a 50.5% undivided interest in direct current (DC)Unit 1 of the Springerville Generating Station (Springerville) increasing its total ownership interest to 100%. See Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-Kfor additional information related to the Springerville Unit 1 settlement.
(2) 
Sundt StationSpringerville Unit 42 is owned by San Carlos Resources, Inc., a multi-fuel generating facility that can be operated on either coal or natural gas as a primary fuel source. In August 2015, TEP exhausted its existing coal supply at Sundt Station Unit 4 and plans to continue operating Sundt Station Unit 4 with natural gas as a primary fuel source. The table above reflects the nominal generating capacity assuming the unit is fueled by natural gas. Refer to Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysiswholly-owned subsidiary of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Environmental Matters of this Form 10-K for additional information related to environmental matters impacting Unit 4 of the H. Wilson Sundt Generating Station (Sundt).
TEP.
(3) 
In January 2017, a second phase of the Ft. Huachuca Project was commissioned adding 5 MW of solar generation to TEP's total generation capacity.
(4)
Excludes 913781 MW of additional resources, which consist of certain capacity purchases and interruptible retail load.


Springerville Generating Station
TEP has a 49.5% ownership interest in Unit 1 of the Springerville Generating Station (Springerville Unit 1) and operates the remaining interests in Springerville Unit 1 on behalf of third parties, Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-trustee under a separate trust agreement with each of the remaining two owner participants, Alterna Springerville LLC (Alterna) and LDVF1 TEP LLC (LDVF1) (Alterna and LDVF1, together with the Owner Trustees and Co-trustees, the Third-Party Owners). The Owner Trustees and Co-Trustees are responsible for their share of operating and capital costs for the facility. See Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding the Third-Party Owners.
Unit 2 of the Springerville Generating Station (Springerville Unit 2) is owned by San Carlos Resources, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of TEP.

4



TEP's other interests in the Springerville Generating Station (Springerville) include: (i) 49.5%a 100% undivided interest in certain common facilities at Springerville (Springerville Common Facilities), that includes assets such as, but not limited to: administration building, roads, and well fields used byto serve all four units at Springerville Unit 1;that cannot be proportioned to each unit; and (ii) an 83%82.95% ownership interest in the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities.
Springerville Common Facilities Leases
TheTEP holds leveraged lease arrangements relatingrelated to a 50% undivided interest in certain Springerville Common Facilities (Springervillethat are scheduled to expire in December 2017 and January 2021. In December 2016, TEP notified the owner participant and the lessor of the lease scheduled to expire in December 2017 that TEP had elected to purchase an undivided ownership interest in the Springerville Common Facilities Leases) used by Springerville Unit 2, whichat the fixed purchase price of $38 million upon the expiration of the lease term. The leases scheduled to expire in 2017 andJanuary 2021 each have fair market value renewal options as well as fixed-price purchase options. The fixed prices to acquire the leased interests in the Springerville Common FacilitiesJanuary 2021 are $38 million in 2017 and $68 million in 2021.million.
See Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K andPart II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Liquidity and Capital Resources and Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding the capital leases.leases and the purchase commitment.
Springerville Units 3 and 4
Springerville Units 3 and 4 are each approximately 400 MW coal-fired generatinggeneration facilities that are operated, but not owned by TEP. These facilities are located at the same site as Springerville Units 1 and 2. The lessee of Springerville Unit 3 and the owner of Springerville Unit 4 compensatecompensates TEP for operating the facilities and paypays an allocated portion of the fixed costs related to the Springerville common facilitiesCommon Facilities and Springerville Coal Handling Facilities.
Sundt Generating Station
Sundt The owner of Springerville Unit 4 owns 17.05% of the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities and pays TEP for a portion of the internal combustion turbines located in Tucson are designated as must-run generationfixed costs allocated for the common facilities. Must-run generation units are required to run in certain circumstances to maintain distribution system reliability and to meet local load requirements.
Renewable Energy Resources
The ACC’s Renewable Energy Standard (RES) requires TEP, and other affectedArizona regulated utilities to increase their use of renewable energy each year until it represents at least 15% of their total annual retail energy requirements by 2025, with distributed generationDG accounting for 30% of the annual renewable energy requirement. Affected utilitiesTEP must file an annual RESimplementation plan for review and approval by the ACC. TEP plans to meet this requirementthese requirements through a combination of utility owned resources, and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)., and customer-sited DG. See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K and Rates and Regulations below for additional information regarding RES.
Owned Renewable Resources
As of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP owned 46 MW of photovoltaic (PV) solar generating capacity.generation capacity measured in DC. In 2016,January 2017, TEP plans to completecompleted an additional solar project adding 5 MW of PV solar generatinggeneration capacity. The solar generatinggeneration facilities are located on properties held under easements and leases. In December 2015, TEP also acquired a 5 MW concentrated solar project which does not increase capacity but displaces the equivalent amount of steam produced by burning fossil fuel.
Renewable Power Purchase Agreements
As of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP hashad renewable PPAs for 175196 MW of capacity measured in direct current (DC)DC from solar resources, 80 MW of capacity measured in alternating current (AC) from wind resources and 4 MW of capacity measured in AC from a landfill gas generation plant.facility. The solar PPAs contain options that allow TEP to purchase all or part of the related project at a future period.date.
Purchased Power Purchases
TEP purchases power from other utilities and power marketers. TEP may enter into contracts to purchase: (i) energypower under long-term contracts to serve retail load and long-term wholesale contracts; (ii) capacity or energypower during periods of planned outages or for peak summer load conditions; and (iii) energypower for resale to certain wholesale customers under load and resource management agreements. See Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements related to the commitment amount of purchased power in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
TEP typically uses generation from its natural gas-fired units, supplemented by purchased power, purchases, to meet the summer peak demands of its retail customers. Some of these power purchases are price-indexed to natural gas. Due to its increasing seasonalnatural gas and purchased power usage, TEP hedges a portion of its total natural gasenergy price exposure with fixed priceforward priced contracts for a maximum of three years. Certain of these contracts are at a fixed price per MWh and others are indexed to natural gas prices. TEP also purchases energypower in the daily and hourly markets to meet


higher than anticipated demands, to cover unplanned generation outages, or when doing so is more economical than generating its own energy.power.

5



TEP is a member of a regional reserve-sharing organization and has reliability and power sharing relationships with other utilities. These relationships allow TEP to call upon other utilities during emergencies, such as plantfacility outages and system disturbances, and reduce the amount of reserves TEP is required to carry.
PEAK DEMAND AND FUTURE RESOURCESPeak Demand and Future Resources
Peak Demand
(in MW)2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
Retail Customers2,222
 2,218
 2,230
 2,290
 2,334
Firm Sales to Other Utilities638
 673
 484
 286
 322
Coincident Peak Demand (A)2,860
 2,891
 2,714
 2,576
 2,656
          
Total Generating Resources2,452
 2,240
 2,240
 2,267
 2,262
Other Resources (1)
913
 932
 775
 683
 1,009
Total TEP Resources (B)3,365
 3,172
 3,015
 2,950
 3,271
Total Margin (B) – (A)505
 281
 301
 374
 615
Reserve Margin (% of Coincident Peak Demand)18% 10% 11% 15% 23%
(in MW)2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Retail Customers2,278
 2,222
 2,218
 2,230
 2,290
(1)
Other Resources include firm power purchases and interruptible
In 2016, TEP's generation and purchased resources were sufficient to meet total retail and long-term wholesale loads.
The chart above shows the relationship over a five-year period between peak demand, and energy resources. Total margin is the difference between total energy resources and coincident peak demand, and thewhile maintaining a reserve margin is the ratio of margin to coincident peak demand. The reserve margin in 2015 was in compliance with reliability criteria set forth by the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, a regional council of North American Reliability Corporation (NERC).
Peak demand occurs during the summer months due to the cooling requirements of retail customers. Retail peak demand varies from year-to-year due to weather, energy conservation, DG, economic conditions, and other factors. Retail peak demand has primarily declined over the five-year periodin 2016 increased due to unseasonably hot weather. From 2012-2015, retail peak demand was negatively impacted by weak economic conditions, and the implementation of energy efficiency programs, and distributed generation.an increased level of customer-installed DG.
Forecasted retail peak demand for 20162017 is 2,1092,233 MW compared with actual peak demand of 2,2222,278 MW in 2015.2016. TEP’s 20162017 estimated retail peak demand is based on weather patterns observed over a 10-year period and other factors, including estimates of customer usage and planned curtailment of mining customers.usage. TEP believes that existing generation capacity and PPAs are sufficient to meet the expected demand in 2016 and established reserve margin criteria.requirements in 2017.
Future Resources
AtAs of December 31, 2015,2016, approximately 49%52% of TEP's generatinggeneration capacity was fueled by coal. Existing and proposed federal environmental regulations, as well as potential changes in state regulation, may increase the cost of operatingis coal-fired generating facilities.generation. TEP is executing strategies and evaluating additional steps to reduce its dependency on coalcoal-fired generation while still meeting its peak load requirements. In August 2015, TEP exhausted its existing coal supply at Unit 4 of the H. Wilson Sundt Generating Station (Sundt Unit 4). TEP expects to continue operating Sundt Unit 4 on natural gas as a primary fuel source.requirements and maintaining affordable Retail Rates.
See Part II, Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Factors Affecting Results of Operations of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding TEP's generating facilitiesgeneration resources.

6



FUEL SUPPLYFuel Supply
A summary of Fuel and Purchased Power Summary
Resourceresource information is provided below:
Average Cost per kWh (cents per kWh) Percentage of Total kWh ResourcesAverage Cost (cents per kWh) Percentage of Total kWh Resources
2015 2014 2013 2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014 2016 2015 2014
Coal2.44
 2.50
 2.66
 60% 68% 75%2.30
 2.44
 2.50
 62% 60% 68%
Gas3.35
 4.99
 4.57
 19% 9% 8%2.84
 3.35
 4.99
 25% 19% 9%
Purchased Power4.05
 4.79
 4.83
 21% 23% 17%
All Sources3.31
 3.64
 3.54
 100% 100% 100%
Purchased Power, Non-Renewable3.43
 3.04
 4.14
 8% 18% 21%
Purchased Power, Renewable7.00
 9.82
 10.50
 5% 3% 2%
All Resources3.15
 3.31
 3.64
 100% 100% 100%


Coal
The coal used for electric generation is low-sulfur, bituminous or sub-bituminous coal from mines in Arizona and New Mexico. The table below provides information on the existing coal contracts that supply our generatinggeneration stations. The average cost of coal per million metric British thermal unit (MMBtu), including transportation, was $2.21 in 2016, $2.34 in 2015, and $2.43 in 2014, and $2.57 in 2013.2014.
Station Coal Supplier 2015 Coal
Consumption
(tons in 000s)
 
Contract
Expiration
 
Avg.
Sulfur
Content
 Coal Obtained From Coal Supplier 2016 Coal Consumption (tons in 000s) Contract Expiration Average Sulfur Content Coal Obtained From
Springerville (1)
 Peabody CoalSales 2,676 2020 1.0% Lee Ranch Mine/El Segundo Mine 
Peabody CoalSales (1)
 2,706 2020 1.0% Lee Ranch Mine/El Segundo Mine
Four Corners (2)
 BHP Billiton 378 2031 0.7% Navajo Mine 
NTEC (2)
 260 2031 0.8% Navajo Mine
San Juan (3)
 San Juan Coal Co. 1,079 2022 0.8% San Juan Mine 
San Juan Coal Co. (3)
 1,212 2022 0.8% San Juan Mine
Navajo Peabody CoalSales 510 2019 0.6% Kayenta Mine 
Peabody CoalSales (1)
 433 2019 0.6% Kayenta Mine
(1) 
In April 2016, Peabody has a pending saleEnergy Corp. (Peabody) filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Lee Ranch Mine/El Segundo MineBankruptcy Code. TEP has continued to Bowie Resources Partners.receive its contracted coal as planned and believes it has sufficient access to coal inventory for the near future. See Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information related to Peabody's bankruptcy.
(2) 
Beginning in July 2016 through June 2031, the coal for the Four Corners will beGenerating Station (Four Corners) is being purchased from the Navajo Transitional Energy Company (NTEC). NTEC purchased the mine located near Four Corners from BHP Billiton and will beginbegan overseeing the mine operation in 2016.
(3) 
BHP Billiton sold San Juan Coal Co.Company (SJCC) to Westmoreland Coal Company (WCC), effective January 31, 2016.
TEPCoal-Fired Generation Facilities Operated Generating Facilitiesby TEP
The coal supplies for Springerville Units 1 and 2 are transported approximately 200 miles by railroad from northwestern New Mexico. TEP expects coal reserves to be sufficient to supply the estimated requirements for Springerville Units 1 and 2 for their estimated remaining lives.
TEP no longer uses coal as a primary fuel source for Sundt Unit 4.
Coal GeneratingCoal-Fired Generation Facilities Operated by Others
TEP also participates in jointly-owned coal-fired generatinggeneration facilities at the Four Corners, Generating Station (Four Corners), the Navajo Generating Station (Navajo), and the San Juan Generating Station (San Juan). Four Corners, which is operated by Arizona Public Service Company (APS), and San Juan, which is operated by Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), are mine-mouth generating stationsgeneration facilities located adjacent to the coal reserves. Navajo, which is operated by SRP, obtains its coal supply from the nearby Kayenta coal mine and receives deliveries on a dedicated electric rail delivery system. Effective January 31,In 2016, Westmoreland Coal CompanyWCC purchased San Juan Coal Company (SJCC)SJCC from BHP Billiton and has also agreed toentered into a new coal supply agreement extending throughfor San Juan with the operator, PNM. The new coal supply agreement has an expiration date of June 30, 2022. TEP expects coal reserves available to these three jointly-owned generatinggeneration facilities to be sufficient for the remaining lives of the stations.
Natural Gas Supply
TEP uses generation from its facilities fueled by natural gas, in addition to energypower from its coal-fired generation facilities and purchased power, to meet the summer peak demands of its retail customers and local reliability needs. The average cost of natural gas per MMBtu, including transportation, was $3.14 in 2016, $3.49 in 2015, and $5.17 in 2014, and $4.55 in 2013.2014.

7



TEP purchases capacity fromhas long-term firm agreements with El Paso Natural Gas (EPNG) for transportation from the Permian and San Juan and Permian Basins to its Sundt plant under firm transportation agreements. TEP also purchases firm gas transportation for Unit 3 of the Gila River Unit 3Generating Station (Gila River) from EPNG and Transwestern Pipeline Co., and for the Luna Generating Station (Luna) from EPNG. TEP purchases natural gas from Southwest Gas Corporation under a retail tariff for the North Loop’sLoop Generating Station's (North loop) 94 MW of internal combustion turbines and receives distribution service under a transportation agreement for DeMoss Petrie aGenerating Station's (DeMoss Petrie) 75 MW internal combustion turbine.
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTIONTransmission and Distribution
TEP's transmission system is part of the Western Interconnection, which includes the interconnected transmission systems of 14 western states, two Canadian provinces and parts of Mexico. TEP's transmission system, together with contractual rights on other transmission systems, enables TEP to integrate and access generation resources to meet its customer load requirements.


TEP's transmission and distribution systems included approximately 2,170 miles of transmission lines and 7,5577,590 miles of distribution lines as of December 31, 2015.2016.
In 2015, TEP completed constructionRates and placed into service a 500-Kilo-volt (kV) transmission line extending from the Pinal Central substation to TEP’s Tortolita substation northwest of Tucson. The transmission line was built to provide additional transmission capacity from the Palo Verde area into TEP’s northern service territory.
RATES AND REGULATIONRegulations
The ACC and the FERC each regulate portions of the utility accounting practices and rates of TEP. The ACC regulates rates charged to retail customers, the siting of generation and transmission facilities, the issuance of debt,securities, transactions with affiliated parties, and other utility matters. The ACC also enacts other regulations and policies that can affect business decisions and accounting practices. The FERC regulates terms and prices of transmission services and wholesale electricity sales.
2015 Rate Case
In November 2015, TEP filed a general rate case with the ACC requesting a Base Rate increase of $110 million and various rate design changes. See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this From 10-K and Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Factors Affecting Results of Operations and Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this From 10-K for additional information that relates to rates and regulations that affect TEP including key provisions regardingof its 2017 Rate Order.
2017 Rate Order
In February 2017, the ACC issued a rate order in the rate case filed by TEP in November 2015. TEP's rate filing was based on a test year ended June 30, 2015 (2017 Rate Case.Order). The 2017 Rate Order authorizes an annual increase in non-fuel revenue requirements of $81.5 million. New billing rates will be effective starting on or before March 1, 2017.
Purchased Power and Fuel Adjustment Clause
The Purchased Power and Fuel Adjustment Clause (PPFAC) allows TEP to recover its fuel, transmission, and purchased power costs, including demand charges, and the costs of contracts for hedging fuel and purchased power costs for its retail customers. The PPFAC consists of a forward component and a true-up component.
The forward component adjusts for any costs over or under base fuel collection rates expected over a 12-month period. The true-up component reconciles any over/under collected amounts from the preceding 12-month period and is creditedcalculated to credit or recoveredrecover these amounts from customers in the subsequent year.
TEP’s PPFAC also includes the recovery of the following costs and/or credits: lime costs used to control sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions at Springerville;emissions; sulfur credits received from TEP’s coal suppliers; broker fees; revenues from short-term wholesale sales; and all of the proceeds from the sale of SO2 allowances.allowances; and all other costs as allowed by the ACC.
AtAs of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP had over-collected fuel and purchased power costs by $18$38 million.
Renewable Energy StandardsStandard and Tariff
The ACC’s RES requires TEP and other affectedArizona utilities to increase their use of renewable energy each year until it represents at least 15% of their total annual retail energy requirements in 2025, with distributed generationDG accounting for 30% of the annual renewable energy requirement. Affected utilities must file an annual RES implementation plan for review and approval by the ACC. The approved costcosts of carrying out those plans is recovered from retail customers through the RES surcharge until such costs are reflected in TEP’s Base Rates.non-fuel base rates. The associated lost revenues attributable to meeting distributed generation targets will be partially recovered through the Lost Fixed Cost Recovery Mechanism (LFCR). See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information.
In July 2015, TEP submitted its application forMay 2016, the ACC approved TEP's 2016 RES implementation plan that includes a budget of $57 million, which will bewas partially offset by applying approximately $9 million of previously recovered carryover funds. TEP proposed towill recover the remaining $48 million through the RES surcharge. The budgetrecovery will fund the following: (i) the above market cost of renewable energypower purchases; (ii) previously awarded performance-based incentives for customer installed distributed generation;DG; (iii) depreciation and a return on TEP'scertain TEP investments in company-owned solar projects; and (iv) various other program costs. TEP expects to receive a

8



decision on the application in the first half 2016. TEP expects to recognizerecognized approximately $9$3 million of revenue in 2016 as a return on company-owned solar projects. TEP suspended its rooftop solar program effective December 2016, but requested approval of a community solar program. The ACC is expected to consider this program in a second phase of TEP’s rate case proceedings (Phase 2).
In July 2016, TEP submitted an application for the 2017 RES implementation plan with a budget amount of $54 million. TEP expects to recover less than $1 million of revenue in 2017 through the RES surcharge as a return on certain company-owned solar projects. This amount reflects the return and related recovery on projects that are not included in TEP’s Retail Rates. In addition, TEP is no longer requesting recovery on company-owned solar projects through the RES mechanism. TEP expects to receive a decision on its 2017 RES implementation plan in first half of 2017.
The percentage of retail kilowatt-hour (kWh) sales attributable to the 20152016 RES renewable energy requirement was 8.6%approximately 10%, exceeding the overall 20152016 requirement of 5.0%6%. TEP expects to meet the 20162017 RES renewable energy


requirement of 6.0%7% of retail kWh sales. Compliance is determined through the ACC's review of TEP's annual RES implementation plan. As TEP no longer pays incentives to obtain distributed generation Renewable Energy Credits (REC), which are used to demonstrate compliance with the distributed generationDG requirement, TEP has requestedthe ACC approved a waiver of the RES distributed generation requirements in its 2016 RES implementation plan.and 2017 residential DG requirement.
Energy Efficiency Standards
In 2010,Under the ACC approved new Energy Efficiency Standards (EE Standards) designed to require, the ACC requires electric utilities to implement cost-effective programs to reduce customers' energy consumption. The EE Standards require increasing cumulative annual targeted retail kWh savings equal to 22% by 2020. Since the implementationAs of the EE Standards,December 2016, TEP’s cumulative annual energy savings arewas approximately 9.3% of retail kWh sales in 2015.12%. Compliance with the EE Standards is determined throughgoverned by the ACC's reviewACC’s approval of the company'sTEP's annual energy efficiency implementation plan.
In February 2016, the ACC approved TEP’sTEP's 2016 energy efficiency implementation plan. Under the 2016 plan, TEP has been approved to recover approximately $14including recovery of approximately$14 million from retail customers and will offer customersfor new and existing DSM programs. Energy savings realized through the programs will count toward Arizona’smeeting the EE Standards and the associated lost revenue will be partially recovered through the LFCR.LFCR mechanism. TEP notified the ACC that it would not file a 2017 implementation plan and will continue its 2016 plan through the end of 2017 without change. TEP expects to file its 2018 implementation plan by June 1, 2017.
Distributed Generation
In 2016, the ACC held proceedings under the Value and Cost of Distributed Generation (Value of DG) docket to examine the ACC’s net metering rules and determine the value that utilities should pay DG customers who deliver electricity from rooftop solar systems back to the grid. Prior to this proceeding, the ACC’s net metering rules allowed DG customers who over-produced electricity to carry-over or “bank” excess electricity at a value equal to the full retail rate per kWh. Banked kWh could then be used by the customer to offset future energy usage that could not be met by their DG system.
In December 2016, the ACC approved an order that will begin to reform net metering in Arizona. The order adopts a number of net metering changes and policies, including:
placing DG customers in a separate rate class;
grandfathering current DG customers under net metering rules and rate design for 20 years from interconnection application;
eliminating the banking of excess kWh for non-grandfathered DG customers; and
compensating non-grandfathered customers for their exported kWh based on the DG export rate in effect at the time of interconnection.
The initial compensation for DG exports will be based on a five-year historical average cost per kWh of TEP’s portfolio of owned and contracted utility-scale solar projects, and will be established in Phase 2. The DG export rate will be updated annually and customers adopting solar will be compensated for 10 years at the rate in effect at the time they file an application for interconnection. An avoided cost methodology will also be developed for potential use in TEP’s next rate case.
FERC Compliance
In 2015 and 2016, TEP self-reported to the FERC Office of Enforcement (OE) that TEP had not timely filed certain FERC-jurisdictional agreements. TEP conducted comprehensive internal reviews of its compliance with the FERC filing requirements (Compliance Reviews), and made compliance filings with the FERC Office of Energy Market Regulation. This included the filing of several TSAs entered into between 2003 and 2015 that contained certain deviations from TEP’s standard form of service agreement.
In 2016, the FERC issued orders related to the late-filed Transmission Service Agreements (TSA), which directed TEP to issue time value refunds to the counterparties to these TSAs (FERC Refund Orders). As a result of the FERC Refund Orders and ongoing discussions with the OE, TEP recorded $22 million in time value refunds in 2016. Of the total amount recorded, TEP paid $17 million in 2016 and accrued the remaining $5 million as of December 31, 2016. In June 2016, to preserve its rights, TEP petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the FERC Refund Orders. In January 2017, TEP and one of the TSA counterparties entered into a settlement. Under the settlement, the counterparty paid TEP $8 million in January 2017 and TEP dismissed the appeal with prejudice. See Note 27 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information.information related to the FERC Refund Orders.

ENVIRONMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
The EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the amount of SO2, nitrogen oxide (NOx), carbon dioxide (CO2), particulate matter, mercury, and other by-products produced by power plants.generation facilities. TEP may incur added costs to comply with future changes in federal and state environmental laws, regulations, and permit requirements at its power plants.generation facilities. Environmental laws and regulations are subject to a range of interpretations, which may ultimately be resolved by the courts. Because these laws and regulations continue to evolve, TEP is unable to predict the impact of the changing laws and regulations on its operations and consolidated financial results. TEP expects to recover the cost of environmental compliance from its ratepayers.through Retail Rates.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
In October 2015, the EPA released the final rule for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS or Ozone Standard.U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone (O3). The EPA lowered the standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70ppb.70 ppb. If Pima County does not meet the standard, the county will be designated as a “non-attainment” area and will need to develop a plan to bring the air-shed into compliance. A “non-attainment” designation may slow economic growth in the region and impact our ability to site new local generation. The States’ recommendation of area designations (attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified) was submitted in September 2016 and Pima County was designated as an attainment area.
Implementation of the rule is scheduled as follows:
States’ recommendation of area designations (attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified) by October 2016.
EPA's response to states’the States’ designation recommendationrecommendations by June 2017.
EPA's finalization of area designations by October 2017, based on 2014-2016 air quality data.
Effluent Limitation Guidelines
In September 2015, as part of the Clean Water Act the EPA published the final Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) setting technology standards and limitations for steam electric power plantgeneration facility discharges. The ELG rule setsestablishes discharge limits for fly ash and mercury contaminated wastewater at those facilities that require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) with an effective date between November 2018 and November 2023. With the first federal limits onexception of Four Corners, none of the levels of toxic metalsother TEP owned facilities require a NPDES permit and therefore are not affected. With regard to Four Corners, until a draft NPDES permit is proposed during the 2018-2023 timeframe, we cannot predict what will be required to control these discharges to be in wastewatercompliance with the finalized effluent limitations at that can be discharged from power plants, based on technology improvements in the steam electric power industry over the last three decades. TEP is evaluating the effects of this rule on its facilities including Navajo, San Juan, and Four Corners. Since the majority of TEP's facilities are zero discharge,facility. TEP does not anticipate a significant financial impact.impact from these requirements.
TEP believes it is in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations. Refer to Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Environmental Laws and Regulations of this Form 10-K for additional information related to environmental laws and regulations impacting TEP's liquidity and capital resources and Liquidity and Capital Resources for TEP's forecasted environmental-related capital expenditures.

9



EMPLOYEES
AtEMPLOYEES
As of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP had 1,4781,508 employees, of which approximately 688686 were represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local No. 1116. A new collective bargaining agreement between the IBEW and TEP was entered into in January 2016 and expires in January 2019.December 2018.

SEC

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
Executive Officers, who are elected annually by TEP’s Board of Directors, acting at the direction of the Board of Directors of UNS Energy, as of January 2, 2017, are as follows:
Name Age Position(s) Held Executive Officer Since
David G. Hutchens (1)
 50 President and Chief Executive Officer 2007
Kevin P. Larson 60 Senior Vice President 1997
Frank P. Marino (1)(2)
 52 Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 2013
Kentton C. Grant (3)
 58 Vice President, Rates and Planning 2007
Susan M. Gray 44 Vice President of Energy Delivery 2015
Todd C. Hixon (1)
 50 Vice President and General Counsel 2011
Karen G. Kissinger 62 Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer 1991
Mark C. Mansfield 61 Vice President, Energy Resources 2012
Catherine E. Ries 57 Vice President, Customer and Human Resources 2007
Mary Jo Smith 59 Vice President, Public Policy 2015
Morgan C. Stoll (4)
 46 Vice President and Chief Information Officer 2016
Martha B. Pritz (5)
 55 Treasurer 2016
Herlinda H. Kennedy 55 Corporate Secretary 2006
(1)
Member of the TEP Board of Directors. The directors of TEP are elected annually by TEP's sole shareholder, UNS Energy, acting at the direction of the Board of Directors of UNS Energy.
(2)
Frank P. Marino was named Vice President and Chief Financial Officer effective January 2, 2017. The appointment was subsequent to the announcement in November 2016 of the retirement of Kevin P. Larson, TEP's former Chief Financial Officer, in 2017.
(3)
In November 2016, Kentton C. Grant was named Vice President of Rates and Planning. Mr. Grant was formerly the Vice President and Treasurer.
(4)
In November 2016, Morgan C. Stoll was named Vice President and Chief Information Officer.
(5)
In November 2016, Martha B. Pritz was named Treasurer.

SEC REPORTS AVAILABLE ON TEP'S WEBSITE
TEP makes available its annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practical after weit electronically filefiles or furnishfurnishes them to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These reports are available free of charge through TEP’s website address at www.tep.com/about/investors/.
UNS Energy’s code of ethics, which applies to the Board of Directors and all officers and employees of UNS Energy and its subsidiaries, including TEP, and any amendments or any waivers made to the code of ethics, is also available on TEP’s website at www.tep.com/about/investors/.
TEP is providing the address of TEP’s website solely for the information of investors and does not intend the address to be an active link. Information contained at TEP’s website is not a part of, or incorporated by reference into, any report or other filing filed with the SEC by TEP.

ITEM 1A.1A. RISK FACTORS
The business and financial results of TEP are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including those set forth below. These risks and uncertainties fall primarily into five major categories: revenues, regulatory, environmental, financial, and operational. Additional risks and uncertainties that are not currently known to TEP or that are not currently believed by TEP to be material may also harm TEP’s business and financial results.

10




REVENUES
National and local economic conditions can negatively affect the results of operations, net income, and cash flows at TEP.
Economic conditions have contributed significantly to a reduction in TEP’s retailservice area have a significant impact on customer growth, use per customer and lower energy usage by the company’s residential, commercial, and industrial customers.overall sales levels. As a result of weak economic conditions, TEP’s average retail customer base grew by less than 1% in each year from 20112012 through 2015 compared with2016. Additionally, economic conditions contributed to a declining average increases of approximately 1% in each year from 2005 to 2009. TEP estimates that a 1% change in annual retailuse per customer and lower overall sales could impact pre-tax net income and pre-tax cash flows by approximately $6 million.over this same period.
New technological developments and compliance with the ACC's EE Standards and RES will continue to have a significant impact on retail sales, which could negatively impactaffect TEP’s results of operations, net income, and cash flows.
Research and development activities are ongoing for new technologies that produce power orand reduce power consumption. These technologies include renewable energy, customer-owned generation, andcustomer-sited DG, appliances, equipment, battery storage and control systems. Continued development and use of these technologies and compliance with the ACC's EE Standards and RES could furthernegatively impact the results of operations, net income, and cash flows of TEP.
The revenues, results of operations, and cash flows of TEP are seasonal, and are subject to weather conditions and customer usage patterns, which are beyond the company’sCompany’s control.
TEP typically earns the majority of its operating revenue and net income in the third quarter because retail customers increase their air conditioning usage during the summer. Conversely, TEP’s first quarter net income is typically limited by relatively mild winter weather in its retail service territory. Cool summers or warm winters may reduce customer usage, adverselynegatively affecting operating revenues, cash flows, and net income by reducing sales.
TEP is dependent on a small segmentnumber of large customers for a significant portion of future revenues. A reduction in the electricity sales to these customers would negatively affect our results of operations, net income, and cash flows.
TEP’s ten largest customers represented 11% of total revenues in 2016. TEP sells electricity to mines, military installations, and other large industrial customers. In 2015, 35% of TEP’s retail kWh sales were to 592 industrialcommercial and miningindustrial customers. Retail sales volumes and revenues from these customer classescustomers could

10



decline as a result of, among other things: global, national, and local economic conditions; curtailments of customer operations due to declines in commodity prices;unfavorable market conditions; military base reorganization or closure decisions by the federal government to close military bases;government; the effects of energy efficiency and distributed generation; or the decision by customers to self-generate all or a portion of their energy needs. A reduction in retail kWh sales toby any one of TEP’s largeten largest customers would negatively affect our results of operations, net income, and cash flows.
REGULATORY
TEP is subject to regulation by the ACC, which sets the company’sCompany’s Retail Rates and oversees many aspects of its business in ways that could negatively affect the company’sCompany’s results of operations, net income, and cash flows.
The ACC is a constitutionally created body composed of five elected commissioners. Commissioners are elected state-wide for staggered four-year terms and are limited to serving a total of two terms. As a result, the composition of the commission, and therefore its policies, are subject to change every two years.
TEP’s Retail Rates consist of Base Ratesbase rates and various rate adjustors that are intended to allow for timely recovery of certain costs between rate cases. The ACC is charged with setting Retail Rates at levels that are intended to allow TEP to recover its costs of service and provide it with an opportunity to earn a reasonable rate of return. In setting TEP’s Retail Rates, the ACC could disallow the recovery of costs, or not provide for the timely recovery of costs.costs or increase regulatory oversight. If customers or regulators have or develop a negative opinion of the Company's utility services or the electric utility industry in general, this could negatively affect TEP's regulatory outcomes. The decisions made by the ACC on such matters impact the net income and cash flows of TEP.
Changes in federal energy regulation may negatively affect the results of operations, net income, and cash flows of TEP.
TEP is subject to the impact of comprehensive and changing governmental regulation at the federal level that continues to change the structure of the electric and gas utility industriesindustry and the ways in which these industries arethis industry is regulated. TEP is subject to regulation by the FERC. The FERC has jurisdiction over rates for electric transmission in interstate commerce and rates for wholesale sales of electric power, including terms and prices of transmission services and sales of electricity at wholesale.
As a result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, owners
11




Owners and operators of bulk power systems, including TEP, are subject to mandatory transmission standards developed and enforced by NERC and subject to the oversight of the FERC. Compliance with modified or new transmission standards may subject TEP to higher operating costs and increased capital costs. Failure to comply with the mandatory transmission standards could subject TEP to sanctions, including substantial monetary penalties.
Changes in tax regulation may negatively affect the results of operations, net income, and cash flows of TEP.
The Company is subject to taxation by the various taxing authorities at the federal, state and local levels where it does business. Legislation or regulation could be enacted by any of these governmental authorities which could affect the Company’s tax positions. The Company cannot predict the timing or extent of such tax-related developments which could have a negative impact on TEP's financial results.
ENVIRONMENTAL
TEP is subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations that may increase its cost of operations or expose it to environmentally-relatedenvironmental-related litigation and liabilities. Many of these regulations could have a significant impact on TEP due to its reliance on coal as its primary fuel for electric generation.
Numerous federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations affect present and future operations. Those laws and regulations include rules regarding air emissions, water use, wastewater discharges, solid waste, hazardous waste, and management of coal combustion residuals.
These laws and regulations can contribute to higher capital, operating, and other costs, particularly with regard to enforcement efforts focused on existing power plantsgeneration facilities and new compliance standards related to new and existing power plants.generation facilities. These laws and regulations generally require usTEP to obtain and comply with a wide variety of environmental licenses, permits, authorizations, and other approvals. Both public officials and private individuals may seek to enforce applicable environmental laws and regulations. Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations may result in litigation, and the imposition of fines, penalties, and a requirement by regulatory authorities for costly equipment upgrades.
Existing environmental laws and regulations may be revised and new environmental laws and regulations may be adopted or become applicable to our facilities. Increased compliance costs or additional operating restrictions from revised or additional regulation could have an adversea negative effect on ourTEP's results of operations, particularly if those costs are not fully recoverable from ourTEP customers. TEP’s obligation to comply with the EPA’s Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinationsRegional Haze Rule requirements as a participant or owner in the Springerville, San Juan, Four Corners, and Navajo, plants, coupled with the financial impact of future climate change legislation, other environmental regulations and other business considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of these plantsgeneration faculties. Additionally, these regulations may jeopardize continued generation facility operations or the ability of individual participants to meet their obligations and willingness to continue their participation in these plants.facilities potentially resulting in increased operational cost for the remaining participants. TEP cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters.
TEP also is contractually obligated to pay a portion of the environmental reclamation costs incurred at generating stationsgeneration facilities in which it has a minority interest and is obligated to pay similar costs at the mines that supply these generating stations.generation facilities. While TEP has recorded the portion of its costs that can be determined at this time, the total costs for final reclamation at these sites are unknown and could be substantial.

11




Federal regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions require a shift in generation from coal to natural gas and renewable generation and could increase TEP's cost of operations.
In August 2015, the EPA issued the Clean Power Plan (CPP) limiting CO2 emissions from existing and new fossil fueled power plants.generation facilities. The CPP establishes state-level CO2 emission rates and mass-based goals that apply to fossil fuel-fired generation. The plan requires CO2 emission reductions for existing facilities by 2030 and establishes interim goals that begin in 2022. TheIn its current form, the CPP will requirerequires a shift in generation from coal to natural gas and renewables and could lead to the early retirement of coalcoal-fired generation in Arizona and New Mexico within the 2022 to 2030 compliance time-frame. TEP will continue to work with the other Arizona and New Mexico utilities, as well as the appropriate regulatory agencies, to develop compliance strategies. TEP is unable to determine howwhether the current CPP will remain in effect or be modified or any final CPP rule will impact its facilities until all legal challenges have been resolved and the currently required state compliance plans are developed and approved by the EPA.

12




FINANCIAL
Early closure of TEP's coal-fired generation plants resulting from environmental regulationsfacilities could result in TEP recognizing impairments in respect of such plants andor increased cost of operations if recovery of ourTEP's remaining investments in such plantsfacilities and the costs associated with such early closures were not permitted through rates charged to customers.
TEP's coal-fired generating stationsgeneration facilities may be required to be closed before the end of their useful lives in response to economic conditions and/or recent or future changes in environmental regulation, including potential regulation relating to greenhouse gas emissions. If any of the coal-fired generation plants, or coal handling facilities from which TEP obtains power are closed prior to the end of their useful life, TEP could be required to recognize an impairment of its assets and incur added expenses relating to accelerated depreciation and amortization, decommissioning, reclamation and cancellation of long-term coal contracts of such generating plants andgeneration facilities. Closure of any of such generating stationsgeneration facilities may force TEP to incur higher costs for replacement capacity and energy. TEP may not be permitted full recovery of these costs in the rates it charges its customers. As of December 31, 2015,2016, approximately 49%52% of TEP's generating capacity is fueled by coal.
FINANCIAL
The Third-Party Owners of Springerville Unit 1 have and may continue to refuse to pay some, or all, of their pro-rata share of the costs and expenses associated with SpringervilleUnit 1.
TEP owns 49.5% of Springerville Unit 1 and two separate third-parties own the remaining 50.5%. Starting in January 2015, TEP is obligated to operate Springerville Unit 1 for these Third-Party Owners under existing agreements. TEP and the Third-Party Owners disagree on several key aspects of these agreements, including the allocation of Springerville Unit 1 operating and maintenance expenses, capital improvement costs, and transmission rights. In addition, since late 2014 the Third-Party Owners have filed separate complaints at the FERC, in New York State court, and with the American Arbitration Association that include allegations that TEP violated certain provisions of the governing agreements in relation to TEP’s operation of Springerville Unit 1. Because of these disagreements and the pending litigation, the Third-Party Owners have and may continue to refuse to pay some or all of their pro-rata share of such Springerville Unit 1 costs and expenses. As of December 31, 2015, TEP has billed the Third-Party Owners approximately $23 million for their pro-rata share of Springerville Unit 1 expenses and $4 million for their pro-rata share of capital expenditures, none of which had been paid as of February 17, 2016. The Third-Party Owners’ share of estimated 2016 operations and maintenance costs for Springerville Unit 1 is approximately $27 million and their share of estimated 2016 capital expenditures is approximately $9 million.generation facilities are coal-fired generation.
Volatility or disruptions in the financial markets, rising interest rates, or unanticipated financing needs, could: increase ourTEP's financing costs; limit our access to the credit markets; affect ourthe Company's ability to comply with financial covenants in our debt agreements; and increase ourTEP's pension funding obligations. Such outcomes may adverselynegatively affect our liquidity and ourTEP's ability to carry out ourthe Company's financial strategy.
We rely on access to the bank markets and capital markets as a significant source of liquidity and for capital requirements not satisfied by the cash flowflows from our operations. Market disruptions such as those experienced in 2008 and 2009 in the United States and abroad may increase our cost of borrowing or adverselynegatively affect our ability to access sources of liquidity needed to finance our operations and satisfy our obligations as they become due. These disruptions may include turmoil in the financial services industry, including substantial uncertainty surrounding particular lending institutions and counterparties we do business with, unprecedented volatility in the markets where our outstanding securities trade, and general economic downturns in our utility service territories. If we are unable to access credit at competitivereasonable rates, or if our borrowing costs dramatically increase, our ability to finance our operations, meet our short-termdebt obligations, and execute our financial strategy could be adverselynegatively affected.
ChangingIncreases in short-term interest rates would increase the cost of borrowing on TEP's tax-exempt variable rate debt obligations of $137 million as of December 31, 2016, and increase the cost of borrowings under its credit facility. In addition, changing market conditions could negatively affect the market value of assets held in our pension and other retireepostretirement plans and may increase the amount and accelerate the timing of required future funding contributions.

12




PlantGeneration facility closings or changes in power flows into ourTEP's service territory could require us to redeem or defease some or all of the tax-exempt bonds issued for ourthe Company's benefit. This could result in increased financing costs.
TEP has financed a substantial portion of utility plant assets with the proceeds of pollution control revenue bonds and industrial development revenue bonds issued by governmental authorities. Interest on these bonds is, subject to certain exceptions, excluded from gross income for federal tax purposes. This tax-exempt status is based, in part, on continued use of the assets for pollution control purposes or the local furnishing of energypower within TEP’s two-county retail service area.
As of December 31, 2015,2016, there were outstanding approximately $309 million aggregate principal amount of tax-exempt bonds that financed pollution control facilitiesexpenditures at TEP’s generating units.generation facilities. Should certain of TEP’s generating unitsgeneration facilities be retired and dismantled prior to the stated maturity dates of the related tax-exempt bonds, it is possible that some or all of the bonds financing such facilitiespollution control expenditures would be subject to mandatory early redemption by TEP. Of the total amount outstanding, $37 million of the principal amount of the bonds can currently be redeemed at par upon notice to holders, and $272 million principal amount of the bonds have early redemption dates or final maturities ranging from 2019 to 2022.
In addition, as of December 31, 2015,2016, there were outstanding approximately $307 million aggregate principal amount of tax-exempt bonds that financed local furnishing facilities. Depending on changes that may occur to the regional generation mix in the desert southwest, to the regional bulk transmission network, or to the demand for retail energypower in TEP’s local service area, it is possible that TEP would no longer qualify as a local furnisher of energypower within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. In recent years, reductions in retail demand in the winter months have made it increasingly difficult for TEP to continue to qualify as a local furnisher of electricity. If TEP could no longer qualify as a local furnisher of energy,power, all of TEP’s tax-exempt local furnishing bonds wouldcould be subject to mandatory early redemption by TEP or defeasance to the earliest possible redemption date.date, and TEP could be required to pay additional amounts if interest on such bonds were no longer tax-exempt. Of the total tax-exempt local furnishing bonds outstanding, $100 millionof the principal amount of the bonds can currently be redeemed at par upon notice to holders, and $207 million principal amount of the bonds have early redemption dates ranging from 2020 to 2023.
TEP’s net income and cash flows can be adversely affected by rising interest rates.
At December 31, 2015, TEP had $137 million of tax-exempt variable rate debt obligations. The interest rates are set weekly or monthly. The average weekly interest rates (including Letters of Credit (LOCs) and remarketing fees) ranged from 0.93% - 1.42% in 2015. The average monthly interest rates ranged from 0.79% - 0.87%. A 100 basis point increase in the average interest rates on this debt over a twelve-month period would increase TEP’s interest expense by approximately $1 million.
13
TEP is also subject to risk resulting from changes in the interest rate on its borrowings under the 2015 Credit Agreement. Such borrowings may be made on a spread over London Interbank Offer Rate (LIBOR) or an Alternate Base Rate.


If short-term interest rates rise, the resulting increase in the cost of variable rate borrowings would negatively impact our results of operations, net income, and cash flows. Likewise, if capital market conditions result in higher long-term interest rates, TEP’s borrowing costs would increase on any new long-term debt needed to finance capital expenditures or to refinance existing long-term debt.
OPERATIONAL
The operation of electric generating stations,generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems involves risks and uncertainties that could result in reduced generatinggeneration capability or unplanned outages that could adverselynegatively affect TEP’s results of operations, net income, and cash flows.
The operation of electric generating stations,generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems involves certain risks and uncertainties, including equipment breakdown or failure,failures, fires, weather, and other hazards, interruption of fuel supply, and lower than expected levels of efficiency or operational performance. Unplanned outages, including extensions of planned outages due to equipment failurefailures or other complications, occur from time to time andtime. They are an inherent risk of our business.business and can cause damage to our reputation. If TEP’s generating stationsgeneration facilities and transmission and distribution systems operate below expectations, TEP’s operating results could be adverselynegatively affected and/or TEP's capital spending could be increased.
TEP receives power from certain generatinggeneration facilities that are jointly ownedjointly-owned and operated by third parties. Therefore, TEP may not have the ability to affect the management or operations at such facilities which could adverselynegatively affect TEP’s results of operations, net income, and cash flows.
Certain of the generating stationsgeneration facilities from which TEP receives power are jointly owned with, or are operated by, third parties. TEP may not have the sole discretion or any ability to affect the management or operations at such facilities. As a result of this reliance on other operators, TEP may not be able to ensure the proper management of the operations and maintenance of the plants.generation facilities. Further, TEP may have no ability or a limited ability to make determinations on how best to manage the changing regulationseconomic conditions or environmental requirements which may

13




affect such facilities. In addition, TEP will not have sole discretion as to how to proceed in the face of requirements relating to environmental compliance which could require significant capital expenditures or the closure of such generating stations. A divergence in the interests of TEP and the co-owners or operators, as applicable, of such generating facilities could negatively impact the business and operations of TEP.
WeTEP may be subject to physical attacks.attacks which could have a negative impact on the Company's business and results of operations.
As operators of critical energy infrastructure, weTEP may face a heightened risk of physical attacks on ourthe Company's electric systems. Our electric generation, transmission, and distribution assets and systems are geographically dispersed and are often in rural or unpopulated areas which make themmakes it especially difficult to adequately detect, defend from, and respond to such attacks.
If, despite our security measures, a significant physical attack occurred, we could have our operations disrupted, property damaged, experience loss of revenues, response costs, and other financial loss; and be subject to increased regulation, litigation, and damage to our reputation, any of which could have a negative impact on ourTEP's business and results of operations.
WeTEP may be subject to cyber attacks.attacks which could have a negative impact on the Company's business and results of operations.
WeTEP may face a heightened risk of cyber attacks. OurThe Company's information and operations technology systems may be vulnerable to unauthorized access due to hacking, viruses, acts of war or terrorism, and other causes. OurTEP's operations technology systems have direct control over certain aspects of the electric system, and in addition, ourthe Company's utility business requires access to sensitive customer data, including personal and credit information, in the ordinary course of business.
If, despite ourTEP's security measures, a significant cyber or data breach occurred, wethe Company could have our operations disrupted, property damaged, and customer information stolen; experience loss of revenues, response costs, and other financial loss; and be subject to increased regulation, litigation, and damage to our reputation, any of which could have a negative impact on ourTEP's business and results of operations.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.


14




ITEM 2.2. PROPERTIES
Transmission facilities owned by TEP and by third parties are located in Arizona and New Mexico and transmit the output from TEP’s electric generating stationsgeneration facilities at Four Corners, Navajo, San Juan, Springerville, Gila River, and Luna to the Tucson area for use by TEP’s retail customers. The transmission system is interconnected at various points in Arizona and New Mexico with other regional utilities. See Part I, Item 1. Business, GeneralOverview of Business of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding the transmission facilities.
TEP's electric generating stationsgeneration facilities (except as noted below), administrative headquarters, warehouses and service centers are located on land owned by TEP. The electric distribution and transmission facilities owned by TEP are located:
on property owned by TEP;
under or over streets, alleys, highways, and other places in the public domain, as well as in national forests and state lands, under franchises, easements, or other rightsrights-of-way which generally are generally subject to termination;
under or over private property as a result of easements obtained primarily from the record holder of title; or
over American Indian reservationstribal lands under grant of easement by the Secretary of the Interior or lease by American Indian tribes.Nations.
It is possible that some of the easements, and the property over which the easements were granted, may have title defects or liens existing at the time the easements were acquired.
Springerville is located on property held by TEP under a term patent with the State of Arizona. TEP, under separate sale and leaseback arrangements, leases a 50% undivided interest in the Springerville Common Facilities (which do not include land).
Four Corners and Navajo are located on properties held under easements from the United States and under leases from the Navajo Nation. TEP, individually and in conjunction with PNM in connection with San Juan, has acquired land rights, easements, and leases for the plant,generation facilities, the transmission lines, and a water diversion facility located on land owned by the Navajo

14




Nation. TEP has also has acquired easements for transmission facilities related to San Juan, Four Corners, and Navajo located on reservation landsIndian Country of the Zuni, Navajo, and Tohono O’odham Nations. TEP, in conjunction with PNM and Samchully Power & Utilities 1 LLC, holds an undivided ownership interest in the property on which Luna is located. TEP and UNS Electric, Inc. (UNS Electric), an affiliate subsidiary of TEP, own a 75% and 25%, respectively, undivided interest in Gila River Unit 3. Gila River Unit 3 is situated on land owned by TEP and UNS Electric, who also own a 25% undivided ownership interest in the common facilities at Gila River as tenants in common. TEP and UNS Electric, together with the remaining 75% common owners have free and clear title of all common facilities.
TEP’s rights under these various easements and leases may be subject to defects such as:
possible conflicting grants or encumbrances due to the absence of, or inadequacies in, the recording laws or record systems of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the American Indian tribes;Nations;
possible inability of TEP to legally enforce its rights against adverse claimants and the American Indian tribesNations without Congressional consent; or
failure or inability of the American Indian tribes to protect TEP’s interests in the easements and leases from disruption by the U.S. Congress, Secretary of the Interior, or other adverse claimants.
These possible defects have not interfered, and are not expected to materially interfere, with TEP’s interest in and operation of its facilities.
Under separate ground lease agreements, TEP leased parcels of land for the following photovoltaicPV facilities:
Thethe Solar Zone oflocated at the University of Arizona TechTechnology Park in Pima County, Arizona; and
the Bright Tucson Community Solar Blockslocated in Pima County, Arizona.
In December 2014,addition, TEP placed in service an additional photovoltaichas a 30-year easement agreement related to a PV facility in Cochise County, Arizona, for which TEP entered into a 30-year easement agreement.Arizona. The easement is to facilitate the operations of a solar photovoltaicPV renewable energy generation system on behalf of the Department of the Army, located at Fort Huachuca in Cochise County.Army.
See Part I, Item 1. Business, General Overview of Business of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding generatinggeneration facilities.

15




ITEM 3.3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Springerville Unit 1 Proceedings
Upon the terminationTEP is party to a variety of legal actions arising out of the Springerville Unit 1 Leases on January 1, 2015, 50.5%normal course of Springerville Unit 1,business. Plaintiffs occasionally seek punitive or 195 MW of capacity, continued to be owned by third parties, Wilmington Trustexemplary damages. The Company believes such normal and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-trustee under a separate trust agreement with each of the remaining two owner participants, Alterna Springerville LLC (Alterna) and LDVF1 TEP LLC (LDVF1) (Alterna and LDVF1, together with the Owner Trustees and Co-trustees, the Third-Party Owners). TEP is not obligated to purchase any of the Third-Party Owners’ Springerville Unit 1 power.
Commencing on January 1, 2015, with the termination of the leases, TEP is obligated to operate the unit for the Third-Party Owners under existing agreements. In 2014, TEP and the Third-Party Owners engaged in discussions regarding the post-lease operation of Springerville Unit 1 and related cost sharing arrangements, but did not reach agreement on several key points.
In November 2014, the Springerville Unit 1 Third-Party Owners filed a complaint (FERC Action) against TEP at the FERC alleging that TEP had not agreed to wheel power and energy for the Third-Party Owners in the manner specified in the existing Springerville Unit 1 facility support agreement between TEP and the Third-Party Owners and for the cost specified by the Third-Party Owners. The Third-Party Owners requested an order from the FERC requiring such wheeling of the Third-Party Owners’ energy from their Springerville Unit 1 interests beginning in January 2015 to the Palo Verde switchyard and for the price specified by the Third-Party Owners. In February 2015, the FERC issued an order denying the Third-Party Owners complaint. In March 2015, the Third-Party Owners filed a request for rehearing in the FERC Action, which the FERC denied in October 2015. In December 2015, the Third-Party Owners appealed the FERC’s order denying the Third-Party Owners' complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In December 2015, TEP filed an unopposed motion to intervene in the Ninth Circuit appeal.
On December 19, 2014, the Third-Party Owners filed a complaint against TEP in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (New York Action). In response to motions filed by TEP to dismiss various counts and compel arbitration of certain of the matters alleged, and the court’s subsequent ruling on the motions, the Third-Party Owners have amended the complaint three times, dropping certain of the allegations and raising others in the New York Action and in the arbitration proceeding described below. As amended, the New York Action alleges, among other things, that TEP failed to properly operate, maintain, and make capital investments in Springerville Unit 1 during the term of the leases and that TEP has breached

15




the lease transaction documents by refusing to pay certain of the Third-Party Owners’ claimed expenses. The third amended complaint seeks $71 million in liquidated damages and direct and consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial. The Third-Party Owners have also agreed to stay their claim that TEP has not agreed to wheel power and energy as required pending the outcome of the FERC Action. In November 2015, the Third-Party Owners filed a motion for summary judgment on their claim that TEP has failed to pay certain of the Third-Party Owners’ claimed expenses.
In December 2014 and January 2015, Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustees and Lessors under the leases of the Third-Party Owners, sent a notice to TEP that alleged that TEP had defaulted under the Third-Party Owners’ leases. The notices demanded that TEP pay liquidated damages totaling approximately $71 million. In letters to the Owner Trustees, TEP denied the allegations in the notices.
In April 2015, TEP filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) seeking an award of the Owner Trustees and Co-Trustees' share of unreimbursed expenses and capital expenditures for Springerville Unit 1. In June 2015, the Third-Party Owners filed a separate demand for arbitration with the AAA alleging, among other things, that TEP has failed to properly operate, maintain and make capital investments in Springerville Unit 1 since the leases have expired. The Third-Party Owners’ arbitration demand seeks declaratory judgments, damages in an amount to be determined by the arbitration panel and the Third-Party Owners’ fees and expenses. TEP and the Third-Party Owners have since agreed to consolidate their arbitration demands into one proceeding. In August 2015, the Third-Party Owners filed an amended arbitration demand adding claims that TEP has converted the Third-Party Owners’ water rights and certain emission reduction payments and that TEP is improperly dispatching the Third-Party Owners’ unscheduled Springerville Unit 1 power and capacity. In October 2015, the arbitration panel granted TEP’s motion for interim relief, ordering the Owner Trustees and Co-Trustees to pay TEP their pro-rata share of unreimbursed expenses and capital expenditures for Springerville Unit 1 during the pendency of the arbitration. The arbitration panel also denied the Third-Party Owners’ motion for interim relief which had requested that TEP be enjoined from dispatching the Third-Party Owners’ unscheduled Springerville Unit 1 power and capacity. TEP has been scheduling, when economical, the Third-Party Owners’ entitlement share of power from Springerville Unit 1, as permitted under the Springerville Unit 1 facility support agreement, since June 14, 2015. The arbitration hearing is scheduled for July 2016.
In November 2015, TEP filed a petition to confirm the interim arbitration order in the Supreme Court of the State of New York naming the Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee as respondents. The petition seeks an order from the court confirming the interim arbitration order under the Federal Arbitration Act. In December 2015, the Owner Trustees filed an answer to the petition and a cross-motion to vacate the interim arbitration order.
As of December 31, 2015, TEP has billed the Third-Party Owners approximately $23 million for their pro-rata share of Springerville Unit 1 expenses and $4 million for their pro-rata share of capital expenditures, none of which had been paid as of February 17, 2016.
TEP cannot predict the outcome of the claims relating to Springerville Unit 1, and, due to the general and non-specific scope and nature of the claims, TEP cannot determine estimates of the range of loss, if any, at this time. TEP intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims asserted by the Third-Party Owners and to vigorously pursue the claims it has asserted against the Owner Trustees and Co-Trustees.
TEP and the Third-Party Owners have agreed to stay these litigation matters relating to Springerville Unit 1 in furtherance of settlement negotiations. However, there is no assurance that a settlement will be reached or that theroutine litigation will not continue.have a material impact on its consolidated financial results. TEP is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert or may assert claims or seek to impose fines, penalties, and other costs in substantial amounts on TEP.
See Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K and Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Factors Affecting Results of Operationsfor additional information regarding Springerville Unit 1.information.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.


16



PART II

ITEM 5.5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS, AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
Market Information
TEP’s common stock is wholly-owned by UNS Energy, and is not listed for trading on any stock exchange.
Dividends
TEP declared and paid dividends to UNS Energy of $50 million in 2016 and 2015 and $40 million in 20142014.
See Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and 2013.
TEP canAnalysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Liquidity and Capital Resources and Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information on regulatory restrictions that limit TEP's ability to pay dividends if it maintains compliance with its 2015 Credit Agreement, the 2010 Reimbursement Agreement, and the 2013 Covenants Agreement which all contain substantially the same financial covenants. At December 31, 2015, TEP was in compliance with the terms of all financial covenants and agreements.
The ACC's approval of the acquisition of UNS Energy by Fortis, in August 2014, contained a condition restricting subsidiary dividend payments to UNS Energy by TEP to no more than 60 percent of TEP's annual net income for the earlier of five years or until such time that TEP's equity capitalization reaches 50 percent of total capital as accounted for in accordance with GAAP. The ratios used to determine the dividend restrictions will be calculated for each calendar year and reported to the ACC annually beginning on April 1, 2016. As of December 31, 2015, TEP's dividend payments were still restricted as the 50 percent of total capital threshold had not yet been reached.dividends.

ITEM 6.6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The following table provides selected financial data for the years 2012 through 2016.
(in thousands)2015 2014 2013 2012 20112016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Income Statement Data                  
Operating Revenues$1,306,544
 $1,269,901
 $1,196,690
 $1,161,660
 $1,156,386
$1,234,995
 $1,306,544
 $1,269,901
 $1,196,690
 $1,161,660
Net Income127,794
 102,338
 101,342
 65,470
 85,334
124,438
 127,794
 102,338
 101,342
 65,470
Balance Sheet Data                  
Total Utility Plant, Net$3,558,229
 $3,425,190
 $2,944,455
 $2,750,421
 $2,650,652
$3,782,806
 $3,558,229
 $3,425,190
 $2,944,455
 $2,750,421
Total Assets (1)
4,249,478
 4,119,830
 3,490,085
 3,413,638
 3,247,647
4,449,989
 4,249,478
 4,119,830
 3,482,860
 3,413,638
         
Long-Term Debt, Net (1)
$1,451,720
 $1,361,828
 $1,213,367
 $1,213,246
 $1,072,037
Long-Term Debt, Net1,453,072
 1,451,720
 1,361,828
 1,213,367
 1,213,246
Non-Current Capital Lease Obligations55,324
 69,438
 131,370
 262,138
 352,720
39,267
 55,324
 69,438
 131,370
 262,138
Cash Flow Data         
Net Cash Flows From Operating Activities$364,934
 $313,663
 $346,191
 $267,919
 $268,294
Net Cash Flows From Investing Activities(502,891) (517,638) (259,662) (227,881) (312,011)
Net Cash Flows From Financing Activities119,471
 252,810
 (140,937) 11,987
 51,452
Other Data                  
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (2)
3.74
 2.56
 2.67
 2.10
 2.40
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (1)
3.69
 3.74
 2.56
 2.67
 2.10
(1)
Total Assets and Long-term Debt, Net were adjusted to reflect the reclassifications made as a result of the recently adopted accounting pronouncements. See Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding recently adopted accounting pronouncements.
(2) 
For purposes of this computation, earnings are defined as pre-tax earnings from continuing operations before minority interest, or income/loss from equity method investments, plus interest expense and amortization of debt discount and expense related to indebtedness. Fixed charges are interest expense, including amortization of debt discount, interest on operating lease payments, and expense on indebtedness, including capital lease obligations.
See Part II, Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information.


17




ITEM 7.7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Management’s Discussion and Analysis explains the results of operations, the general financial condition, and the outlook for TEP. It includes the following:
outlook and strategies;
operating results during 2016 compared with 2015, and 2015 compared with the same periods of 2014, and 2014 compared with 2013;2014;
factors affecting our results of operations and outlook;
liquidity capital needs,and capital resources including capital expenditures, contractual obligations, and contractual obligations;
dividends; andenvironmental matters;
critical accounting estimates.policies and estimates; and
recent accounting pronouncements.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis includes financial information prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States of America (GAAP), as well as certain non-GAAP financial measures. The non-GAAP financial measures should be viewed as a supplement to, and not a substitute for, financial measures presented in accordance with GAAP. Non-GAAP financial measures as presented herein may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other companies.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with Part 2, Item 6, of this Form 10-K Selected Financial Data and the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K. For information on factors that may cause our actual future results to differ from those we currently seek or anticipate, see Forward-Looking Information at the front of this report and Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors for additional information.
References in this reportdiscussion and analysis to "we" and "our" are to TEP.

OUTLOOK AND STRATEGIES
TEP's financial prospects and outlook are affected by many factors including: global, national, regional, and local economic conditions; volatility in the financial markets; environmental laws and regulations; and other regulatory factors. Our plans and strategies include the following:
Achieving a constructive outcomeoutcomes in our pending rate case proceedingregulatory proceedings that provides TEPprovide us: (i) recovery of itsour full cost of service and an opportunity to earn an appropriate return on itsour rate base investments,investments; (ii) updated rates tothat provide more accurate price signals and a more equitable allocation of costs to TEP's customers,our customers; and enables TEP(iii) the ability to continue to provideproviding safe and reliable service.
Continuing to focus on our long-term generation resource diversification strategy, including shifting from coal to natural gas, renewables, and energy efficiency while providing rate stability for our customers, mitigating environmental impacts, complying with regulatory requirements, leveraging and improving our existing utility infrastructure, and maintaining financial strength.
Developing strategic responses to new environmental regulations and potential new legislation, including new carbon emission standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. We are evaluating TEP's existing mix This long-term strategy includes a target of generation resources and defining steps to achieve environmental objectives that protect the financial stabilitymeeting 30% of our utility business and the interests of our customers.
Strengthening the underlying financial condition of TEPcustomers’ energy needs with non-carbon emitting resources by achieving constructive regulatory outcomes, strengthening our capital structure, sustaining our credit ratings, and promoting economic development in our service territory.2030.
Focusing on our core utility business through operational excellence, promoting economic development in our service territory, investing in utility rate base, emphasizing customerinfrastructure to ensure reliable service, and maintaining a strong community presence.
Operational and Financial Highlights
Management's Discussion and Analysis includes the following notable items:
In February 2016, TEP entered into an agreement with the Third-Party Owners for the settlement and release of asserted claims and the purchase by TEP of the Third-Party Owners' 50.5% undivided interest in Springerville Unit 1 for $85 million. In September 2016, the purchase was completed and all asserted claims were dismissed. The Third-Party Owners paid TEP $12.5 million for previously unreimbursed operating costs related to Springerville Unit 1 incurred on behalf of the Third-Party Owners.

18




2015 Operational and Financial Highlights
The year ended December 31, 2015 included the following notable items:
In January 2015,March 2016, TEP purchased an additional 24.8% undivided ownership interest in Springerville Unit 1, bringingnotified the EPA of its total ownership interestdecision to 49.5%;permanently eliminate coal as a fuel source as a better-than-BART alternative at Sundt.
In 2016, TEP recorded $22 million in time value refunds as a result of FERC orders relating to late filed TSAs. TEP paid a total of $17 million in 2016 in time value refunds to the counterparties to these TSAs. In January 2015,2017, TEP purchased existing unsecured tax-exempt industrial development revenue bondsand one of the TSA counterparties entered into a settlement agreement resulting in the amount of $130counterparty paying TEP $8 million using funds borrowed fromand TEP dismissing an appeal previously filed in June 2016.
In December 2016, TEP notified the term loan portionowner participant and the lessor of the 2014 Credit Agreement;
In February 2015,lease at the Springerville Common Facilities expiring in December 2017 that TEP issued and sold $300 million of unsecured notes;
In April 2015, TEP purchased an additional 86.7%had elected to purchase its undivided ownership interest in the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities, and in May 2015, TEP sold a 17.05% undivided ownership interest infacilities at the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities to SRP;fixed purchase price of $38 million upon the expiration of the lease term.
In June 2015, TEP terminatedFebruary 2017, the 2014 Credit Agreement;
In June 2015, TEP received an equity contributionACC issued a decision in TEP’s rate case approving a non-fuel base rate increase of $180$81.5 million from UNS Energy;
In October 2015, TEP entered intoand a new unsecured credit agreement (2015 Credit Agreement) that provides for a $250 million revolving credit and letter of credit (LOC) facility.7.04% return on original cost rate base. The new credit agreement matures in 2020 and replaces the 2010 Credit Agreement;
In November 2015, TEP filed a general rate case with the ACC that requests, among other things, a Base Rate increase of $110 million. The application also requests that new rates becomewill be effective no later than Januaryon or before March 1, 2017; and
In December 2015, TEP completed construction and placed into service a 500-kV transmission line extending from the Pinal Central substation to TEP’s Tortolita substation northwest of Tucson.2017.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following discussion provides the significant items that affected TEP's results of operations for thein years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, 2014 and 2013. The significant items affecting net income are2014, presented on an after-tax basis.
2016 compared with 2015
TEP reported net income of $124 million in 2016 compared with $128 million in 2015. The decrease of $4 million, or 3%, was primarily due to:
$13 million in refunds associated with late-filed TSAs. See Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K;
$6 million in higher depreciation and amortization expense related primarily to an increase in asset base; and
$4 million in higher operations and maintenance expense resulting primarily from an increase in outside services and employee wages and benefits.
The decrease was partially offset by:
$8 million in higher revenues related to the Springerville Unit 1 settlement. For further information related to the settlement. See Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K;
$6 million in higher net income as a result of a reduction in the valuation allowance for deferred tax assets based on an increase in projected taxable income; and
$4 million from higher LFCR revenues that partially offset lower retail sales.
2015 compared with 2014
TEP reported net income of $128 million in 2015 compared with $102 million in 2014. The increase of $26 million, or 25%, was primarily due to:
$16 million in lower O&Moperations and maintenance expense resulting primarily from acquisition relatedFortis acquisition-related costs and planned generation outages at Springerville Units 1 and 2 that were incurredoccurred in 2014, partially offset by higher O&Moperations and maintenance expense related to Gila River Unit 3, labor costs, and outside services;
$6 million in higher transmission revenuerevenues resulting primarily from an increase in sales volumevolumes on favorably priced contracts; and
$4 million in lower interest expense primarily due to a reduction in the balance of capital lease obligations.
2014 compared with 2013
TEP reported net income of $102 million in 2014 compared with $101 million in 2013. The increase of $1 million, or 1%, was primarily due to:
$25 million in higher revenues including a non-fuel Base Rate increase that was effective on July 1, 2013, an increase in LFCR revenues, higher long-term wholesale revenues due in part to an increase in the average market price and higher transmission revenue; and
$7 million in lower interest expense, primarily due to a reduction in the balance of capital lease obligations.
The increase was partially offset by:
$22 million in higher O&M for acquisition related costs, higher generating plant maintenance expense, and increased rent expense associated with the Navajo lease amendment;

19



$5 million in higher income taxes primarily generated by a non-recurring $11 million tax benefit recorded in June 2013 to recover previously recorded income tax expense as a result of the 2013 TEP Rate Order. This amount is partially offset by a $2 million increase in the valuation allowance in 2013 and a $3 million increase in investment tax credits recorded in 2014. See Note 12 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding income taxes; and
$4 million in higher depreciation and amortization expenses, resulting primarily from an increase in asset base in the current year.

20



UtilityRetail Sales and Revenues
Retail Revenues were $990 million in 2016, $1,022 million in 2015, and $970 million in 2014. Retail Margin Revenues (non-GAAP) were $631 million in 2016, $629 million in 2015, and $626 million in 2014. The table below provides a summary of retail kWh sales, revenues,a reconciliation of Retail Margin Revenues to Retail Revenues, and weather data during 2015, 2014 and 2013:data:
Year Ended Increase (Decrease) Year Ended Increase (Decrease)
Years Ended
December 31,
 Increase (Decrease) 
Year Ended
December 31
 Increase (Decrease)
2015 2014 
Percent(1)
 2013 
Percent(1)
2016 2015 Percent 2014 Percent
Electric Retail Sales (kWh in millions)         
Retail Sales by Customer Class (kWh in millions)
         
Residential3,724
 3,727
 (0.1)% 3,867
 (3.6)%3,724
 3,724
  % 3,727
 (0.1)%
Commercial2,124
 2,170
 (2.1)% 2,187
 (0.8)%2,139
 2,124
 0.7 % 2,170
 (2.1)%
Industrial2,063
 2,098
 (1.7)% 2,114
 (0.8)%2,006
 2,063
 (2.8)% 2,098
 (1.7)%
Mining1,109
 1,137
 (2.5)% 1,079
 5.4 %997
 1,109
 (10.1)% 1,137
 (2.5)%
Public Authorities33
 33
  % 32
 3.1 %30
 33
 (9.1)% 33
  %
Total Electric Retail Sales9,053
 9,165
 (1.2)% 9,279
 (1.2)%
Retail Margin Revenues (in millions)         
Total Retail Sales by Class8,896
 9,053
 (1.7)% 9,165
 (1.2)%
Retail Revenues (in millions)
         
Residential$281
 $280
 0.4 % $271
 3.3 %$281
 $281
  % $280
 0.4 %
Commercial185
 188
 (1.6)% 181
 3.9 %186
 185
 0.5 % 188
 (1.6)%
Industrial103
 104
 (1.0)% 97
 7.2 %102
 103
 (1.0)% 104
 (1.0)%
Mining38
 38
  % 34
 11.8 %35
 38
 (7.9)% 38
  %
Public Authorities2
 2
  % 2
  %2
 2
  % 2
  %
Total by Customer Class609
 612
 (0.5)% 585
 4.6 %
Retail Margin Revenues by Class606
 609
 (0.5)% 612
 (0.5)%
LFCR Revenues12
 11
 9.1 % 2
 *
18
 12
 50.0 % 11
 9.1 %
DSM Performance Bonus3
 2
 50.0 % 1
 100.0 %2
 3
 (33.3)% 2
 50.0 %
Other Retail Margin Revenues5
 1
 *
 
 *
5
 5
  % 1
 *
Total Retail Margin Revenues (Non-GAAP) (1)
629
 626
 0.5 % 588
 6.5 %
Retail Margin Revenues (non-GAAP) (1)
631
 629
 0.3 % 626
 0.5 %
Fuel and Purchased Power Revenues344
 303
 13.5 % 300
 1.0 %305
 344
 (11.3)% 303
 13.5 %
DSM and RES Surcharge Revenues49
 41
 19.5 % 46
 (10.9)%54
 49
 10.2 % 41
 19.5 %
Total Retail Revenues (GAAP)$1,022
 $970
 5.4 % $934
 3.9 %$990
 $1,022
 (3.1)% $970
 5.4 %
Average Retail Margin Rate (Cents / kWh) (2)
         
Average Retail Margin Rate by Class (cents / kWh)
         
Residential7.55
 7.51
 0.5 % 7.02
 7.0 %7.55
 7.55
  % 7.51
 0.5 %
Commercial8.71
 8.66
 0.6 % 8.28
 4.6 %8.70
 8.71
 (0.1)% 8.66
 0.6 %
Industrial4.99
 4.96
 0.6 % 4.61
 7.6 %5.08
 4.99
 1.8 % 4.96
 0.6 %
Mining3.43
 3.34
 2.7 % 3.14
 6.4 %3.51
 3.43
 2.3 % 3.34
 2.7 %
Public Authorities5.61
 6.06
 (7.4)% 5.56
 9.0 %
Total Average Margin Rate by Customer Class6.73
 6.68
 0.7 % 6.30
 6.0 %
Public Authorities (2)
5.68
 5.61
 1.2 % 6.06
 (7.4)%
Average Retail Margin Rate by Class6.81
 6.73
 1.2 % 6.68
 0.7 %
Total Average Retail Margin Rate (3)
6.95
 6.80
 2.2 % 6.31
 7.8 %7.09
 6.95
 2.0 % 6.80
 2.2 %
Average Fuel and Purchased Power Rate3.80
 3.31
 14.8 % 3.24
 2.2 %3.43
 3.80
 (9.7)% 3.31
 14.8 %
Average DSM and RES Rate0.54
 0.48
 12.5 % 0.52
 (7.7)%
Average DSM and RES Surcharge Rate0.61
 0.54
 13.0 % 0.48
 12.5 %
Total Average Retail Rate11.29
 10.59
 6.6 % 10.07
 5.2 %11.13
 11.29
 (1.4)% 10.59
 6.6 %
Weather Data
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
Cooling Degree Days                  
Year Ended December 31,1,576
 1,557
 1.2 % 1,631
 (4.5)%
Actual1,515
 1,576
 (3.9)% 1,557
 1.2 %
10-Year Average1,520
 1,515
 *
 1,491
 *
1,535
 1,520
 *
 1,515
 *
Heating Degree Days                  
Year Ended December 31,1,072
 930
 15.3 % 1,449
 (35.8)%
Actual992
 1,072
 (7.5)% 930
 15.3 %
10-Year Average1,317
 1,335
 *
 1,404
 *
1,286
 1,317
 *
 1,335
 *
* Not meaningful


(1) 
Retail Margin Revenues, a non-GAAP financial measure, should not be considered as an alternative to Total Retail Revenues, which is determined in accordance with GAAP. Retail Margin Revenues exclude: (i) revenues collected from retail customers that are directly offset by expenses recorded in other line items; and (ii) revenues collected from third parties that are unrelated to kWh sales to retail customers. We believe the change in Retail Margin Revenues between periods provides useful information for investors and analysts because it demonstrates the underlying revenue trend and performance of our core utility business. Retail Margin Revenues represents the portion of retail operating revenues from kWh sales, LFCR Revenues, DSM Performance Bonus, and certain Other Retail Margin Revenues available to cover the non-fuel operating expenses of our core utility business.

21



directly offset by expenses recorded in other line items; and (ii) revenues collected from third parties that are unrelated to kWh sales to retail customers. We believe the change in Retail Margin Revenues between periods provides useful information because it demonstrates the underlying revenue trend and performance of our core utility business. Retail Margin Revenues represents the portion of retail operating revenues from kWh sales, LFCR Revenues, DSM Performance Bonus, and certain other retail margin revenues available to cover the non-fuel operating expenses of our core utility business.
(2) 
Calculated on un-roundedunrounded data and may not correspond exactly to data shown in table.
(3) 
Total Average Retail Margins Rates include revenuesMargin Rate includes revenue related to LFCR Revenues, DSM Performance Bonus, and Other Retail Margin Revenues included in the Total Retail Margin Revenues.
Retail Revenues were lower in 2016 compared with 2015 primarily due to a decrease in the PPFAC rate partially offset by higher Retail Margin Revenues. Retail Margin Revenues were higher primarily due to an increase in LFCR revenues.
Retail Revenues were higher in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily due to thean increase in the PPFAC rate and higher Retail Margin Revenues. Retail Margin Revenues were higher primarily due to higher LFCR revenues,Revenues, DSM Performance Bonus, and Other Retail Margin Revenues related to adjustor mechanisms.
RetailWholesale Revenues were higher
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016 2015 2014
Long-Term Wholesale$27
 $36
 $28
Short-Term Wholesale81
 104
 114
Transmission31
 27
 16
Transmission Refunds (1)
(22) 
 
Total Wholesale Revenues$117
 $167
 $158
(1)
FERC ordered TEP to make refunds associated with various late-filed TSAs for the time period during which rates were charged without FERC authorization. See Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information on the FERC ordered refunds.
Wholesale Revenues decreased by $50 million, or 30%, in 20142016 compared with 20132015 primarily due to higher Retail Margin Revenuesrefunds related to the late-filed TSAs and increased LFCR revenues. The increase in Retail Margin Revenues resulteddecreased volumes and market prices of both short-term and long-term wholesale sales resulting from unfavorable market conditions and termination of a non-fuel Base Rate increase effective July 1, 2013. These increases were partially offset by lower sales volume due to milder weather.firm contract at the end of May 2016.
Wholesale Sales and Transmission Revenues
 Year Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 2013
Long-Term Wholesale Revenues$36

$28
 $26
Transmission Revenues27
 16
 15
Short-Term Wholesale Revenues104
 114
 92
Total Electric Wholesale Sales$167
 $158
 $133
Long-Term Wholesale Revenues increased by $8$9 million, or 29%, in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily due to new wholesale agreements partially offset by unfavorable wholesale market prices. Transmission Revenues increased by $11 million, or 69%6%, in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily due to a new long-term transmission agreement with UNS Electric related to Gila River andUnit 3, transmission contract renewals resulting in favorable pricing.pricing, and new long-term wholesale agreements, partially offset by a decrease in market prices of short-term sales resulting from unfavorable market conditions.
Long-TermShort-Term Wholesale Revenues increased by $2 million, or 8%, in 2014 compared with 2013are primarily duerelated to favorable market prices for wholesale power. There were no significant changes in transmission revenues in 2014 compared to 2013.
The majority of revenues from short-term wholesale sales are related tothe ACC jurisdictional assets and are creditedreturned to retail customers by crediting the revenues against the fuel and purchased power costs eligible for recovery inthrough the PPFAC.
Other Revenues
 Year Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 2013
Springerville Units 3 and 4 Revenue (1)
$91
 $112
 $102
Other Revenue27
 29
 28
Total Other Revenue$118
 $141
 $130
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016 2015 2014
Springerville Units 3 and 4 (1)
$86
 $91
 $112
Other42
 27
 29
Total Other Revenues$128
 $118
 $141
(1) 
Represents revenues and reimbursements to TEP from Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State), the lessee of Springerville Unit 3, and SRP, the owner of Springerville Unit 4, to TEP related to the operation of these plants.generation facilities.
In addition toOther Revenues includes: (i) reimbursements related to Springerville Units 3 and 4, TEP’s other revenues include4; (ii) inter-company revenues from itsTEP's affiliates, UNS Gas, Inc. (UNS Gas), an indirect wholly-ownedaffiliated subsidiary of UNS Energy, (UNS Gas)TEP, and UNS Electric, for corporate services provided by TEP,TEP; and (iii) miscellaneous service-related revenues such as rent on power pole attachments, damage claims, and customer late fees.


Other Revenues increased by $10 million, or 8%, in 2016 compared with 2015 primarily due to the Springerville Unit 1 settlement agreement. For further information related to the Springerville Unit 1 settlement. See Note 57 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K10-K. The increase was offset by a decrease in reimbursed costs in 2016 for additional information regardingSpringerville Units 3 and 4 related party transactions.to planned generation outages in 2015.
There were no significant changes in Other RevenueRevenues decreased by $23 million, or 16%, in 2015 compared with 2014 as well as no significant changesprimarily due to a decrease in Other Revenuereimbursed costs in 2014 compared with 2013.2015 for Springerville Units 3 and 4 related to planned generation outages in 2014.

22



Operating Expenses
GeneratingGeneration Output and Fuel and Purchased Power Expense
TEP’s fuel and purchased power expense and energy resources for 2015, 2014, and 2013 are detailed below:
Generation and Purchased Power (kWh) Fuel and Purchased Power Expense
Generation and Purchased Power (kWh) Fuel and Purchased Power ExpenseYears Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 2013 2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014 2016 2015 2014
Coal-Fired Generation8,584
 9,271
 10,254
 $209
 $232
 $273
8,310
 8,584
 9,271
 $192
 $209
 $232
Gas-Fired Generation2,723
 1,210
 1,007
 91
 60
 46
3,283
 2,723
 1,210
 93
 91
 60
Utility Owned Renewable Generation65
 48
 38
 
 
 
68
 65
 48
 
 
 
Reimbursed Fuel Expense for Springerville Units 3 and 4 (1)

 
 
 5
 5
 7
Reimbursed Fuel Expense, Springerville Units 3 and 4 (1)

 
 
 5
 5
 5
Total Generation11,372
 10,529
 11,299
 305
 297
 326
11,661
 11,372
 10,529
 290
 305
 297
Purchased Power, Non-Renewable1,126
 2,627
 2,895
 39
 81
 121
Purchased Power, Renewable666
 452
 300
 46
 44
 32
Total Purchased Power3,079
 3,195
 2,329
 125
 153
 112
1,792
 3,079
 3,195
 85
 125
 153
Transmission and Other PPFAC Recoverable Costs
 
 
 25
 18
 12

 
 
 24
 25
 18
Increase (Decrease) to Reflect PPFAC Recovery Treatment
 
 
 40
 (11) (12)
 
 
 21
 40
 (11)
Total Generation and Purchased Power14,451
 13,724
 13,628
 $495
 $457
 $438
13,453
 14,451
 13,724
 $420
 $495
 $457
Less Line Losses and Company Use(719) (859) (885)      (786) (719) (859)      
Total Energy Sold13,732
 12,865
 12,743
      
Total Power Sold12,667
 13,732
 12,865
      
(1) 
Springerville UnitUnits 3 and 4 Fuel Expense is reimbursed by Tri-State and SRP.
Fuel and Purchased Power Expense decreased by $75 million, or 15%, in 2016 compared with 2015 primarily due to a decrease in non-renewable purchased power volumes, Coal-Fired Generation kWhs, and fuel costs per kWhs (see table below). The decrease was partially offset by an increase in Gas-Fired Generation kWhs.
Fuel and Purchased Power Expense increased by $38 million, or 8%, in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily due to an increase in the PPFAC charge and additional generation and transmission costs associated with Gila River Unit 3. The increase was partially offset by favorablea decrease in fuel and purchased power costs per kWhs (see table below) and decreased coalcoal-fired generation at Springerville Unit 1 as a result of the lease expiration in January 2015.
Fuel and Purchased Power Expense increased by $19 million, or 4%, in 2014 compared with 2013 primarily due to the increase in purchased power volumes resulting from outages at Springerville and Sundt generating stations in 2014. The increase was partially offset by a decrease in generation expense as a result of the outages.
See the table below for information on thesummarizes average fuel cost of generated and purchased kWh:
Years Ended December 31,
(cents per kWh)2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014
Coal2.44
 2.50
 2.66
2.30
 2.44
 2.50
Gas3.35
 4.99
 4.57
2.84
 3.35
 4.99
Purchased Power4.05
 4.79
 4.83
All Sources3.31
 3.64
 3.54
Purchased Power, Non-Renewable3.43
 3.04
 4.14
Purchased Power, Renewable7.00
 9.82
 10.50
All Resources3.15
 3.31
 3.64


Operations and Maintenance Expense
The table below summarizes the items included in Operations and Maintenance (O&M) expense:Expense:
(in millions)2015 2014 2013
Reimbursed Expenses - Springerville Units 3 and 4 (1)
$65
 $84
 $70
Reimbursed Expenses - Customer Funded Renewable Energy and
DSM Programs (2)
25
 23
 26
Other Operating and Maintenance Expense (3)
255
 272
 239
Total Operations and Maintenance Expense$345
 $379
 $335
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016 2015 2014
Reimbursed Expenses, Springerville Units 3 and 4 (1)
$61
 $65
 $84
Reimbursed Expenses, Customer Funded Renewable Energy and
DSM Programs (2)
31
 25
 23
Other (3)
262
 255
 272
Total Operations and Maintenance Expense$354
 $345
 $379
(1) 
Expenses related to Springerville Units 3 and 4 are reimbursed with corresponding amounts recorded in other revenue.Other Revenue.
(2) 
These expenses are being collected from customers and the corresponding amounts are recorded in retail revenue.Retail Revenue.
(3) 
TheIncludes the Third-Party Owners' share of expenses related to Springerville Unit 1 is included in Other Operatingfor years ended 2015 and Maintenance Expense.2014 and part of 2016.

23



OperatingOperations and Maintenance Expense increased by $9 million, or 3%, in 2016 compared with 2015 primarily due to an increase in expenses related to planned generation outages, outside services, and employee wages and benefits and an increase in RES and DSM program expenses.
Operations and Maintenance Expense decreased by $34$34 million, or 9%, in2015 compared with 2014.2014 primarily due to a decrease in Springerville Units 3 and 4 expenses, which are reimbursed by third party owners, decreased primarily duerelated to outages that incurred in 2014. Other Operating and Maintenance Expense decreased primarily due to acquisition related2014 as well as Fortis acquisition-related costs and outages at Springerville Units 1 and 2 that occurred in 2014,2014. The decrease was partially offset by higher O&Moperations and maintenance expenses related to Gila River Unit 3, labor costs, and outside services.
Operating and Maintenance expenses increased by$44 million, or 13%, in 2014 compared with 2013. Springerville Units 3 and 4 expenses, which are reimbursed by third party owners, increased primarily due to outages incurred in 2014. Other Operating and Maintenance Expense increased primarily due to acquisition related costs and outages at Springerville Units 1 and 2 that occurred in 2014.

FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
2015 Rate Case2017 RATE ORDER
In November 2015, TEP filedFebruary 2017, the ACC issued a generalrate order in the rate case with the ACC to: (i) update and improve itsfiled by TEP in November 2015. TEP's rate design and tariffs to provide more accurate price signals and a more equitable allocation of its fixed costs to its customers; (ii) provide TEP with an opportunity to recover its full cost of service, including an appropriate return on its rate base investments; and (iii) enable TEP to continue to provide safe and reliable service. The rate application isfiling was based on a test year ended June 30, 2015. The filing requests that2017 Rate Order approved new rates to be implemented by Januaryeffective on or before March 1, 2017.
The key provisions of the rate case include:2017 Rate Order include, but are not limited to:
a Base Ratenon-fuel base rate increase of $110$81.5 million or 12%, compared with adjusted test year revenues;which includes $15 million of operating costs related to the 50.5% undivided interest in Springerville Unit 1 purchased by TEP in September 2016;
a 7.34%7.04% return on original cost rate base of $2.1approximately $2 billion;
a cost of equity component of 9.75% and a cost of debt component of 4.32%;
a capital structure for rate making purposes of approximately 50% common equity and 50% long-term debt;
adoption of TEP's proposed depreciation and amortization rates, which include a cost of equity of 10.35%reduction in the depreciable life for San Juan Unit 1; and an average cost of debt of 4.32%;
a request to apply excess depreciation reserves against the unrecovered net book value (NBV) of San Juan Unit 2 and the coal handling facilities at Sundt Coal Handling Facilities due to early retirement;retirement.
a requestThe ACC deferred TEP's proposed changes to net metering and rate design for authoritynew DG customers to Phase 2, which is expected to begin usingin the Third-Party Owners' portionsecond quarter of Springerville Unit 1 that is available to TEP for dispatch to serve retail customer needs and to recover the related operating costs through the PPFAC; and
rate design changes that would reduce the reliance on volumetric sales to recover fixed costs, and a new net metering tariff that would ensure that customers who install distributed generation pay an equitable price for their electric service.
2017. TEP cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding or whether its rate request will be adopted by the ACC in whole or in part.proceeding.
GeneratingGeneration Resources
AtAs of December 31, 2015,2016, approximately 49%52% of TEP's generatinggeneration capacity was fueled by coal. Existing and proposed federal environmental regulations, as well as potential changes in state regulation, may increase the cost of operatingis coal-fired generating facilities.generation. TEP is executing strategies and evaluating additional steps to reduce its dependencyreliance on coalcoal-fired generation.


Integrated Resource Plan
In August 2015, TEP exhausted its existing coal supply at Unit 4 ofMarch 2016, as required by the H. Wilson Sundt Generating Station (Sundt Unit 4). Currently, TEP is operating Sundt Unit 4 on natural gas as a primary fuel source.
TEP's ability to further reduce its coal-fired generating capacity will depend on several factors, including, but not limited to:
The impact of the Clean Power Plan on current coal-fired generating facilities; and
The ability to resolve Springerville Unit 1 legal proceedings relating to the Third-Party Owners.
See Part I, Item 1. Business, General for additional information regarding TEP's generating facilities.

24



Springerville Unit 1
TEP leased Unit 1 of the Springerville Generating Station and an undivided one-half interest in certain Springerville Common Facilities (collectively Springerville Unit 1) under seven separate lease agreements (Springerville Unit 1 Leases) that were accounted for as capital leases. The leases expired in January 2015. At that time, TEP purchased a leased interest comprising 24.8% of Springerville Unit 1, representing 96 MW of capacity, for an aggregate purchase price of $46 million. Following this purchase, TEP owns 49.5% of Springerville Unit 1, or 192 MW of capacity.
The remaining 50.5% of Springerville Unit 1, or 195 MW of capacity, is owned by Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-trustee under a separate trust agreement with each of the remaining two owner participants, Alterna Springerville LLC (Alterna) and LDVF1 TEP LLC (LDVF1) (Alterna and LDVF1, together with the Owner Trustees and Co-trustees, the Third-Party Owners). TEP is not obligated to purchase any of the Third-Party Owners’ generating output. TEP is obligated to operate the unit for the Third-Party Owners. Owner Trustees and Co-Trustees are obligated to compensate TEP for their pro rata share of expenses for the unit. TEP estimates the Third-Party Owners’ share of 2016 operations and maintenance expense will be $27 million and their estimated share of 2016 capital expenditures will be $9 million.
In April 2015,ACC, TEP filed a demand for arbitration seeking an award of the Owner Trustees and Co-Trustees' share of unreimbursed expense and capital expenditures for Springerville Unit 1. In October 2015, the arbitration panel granted TEP’s motion for interim relief, ordering the Owner Trustees and Co-Trustees to pay TEP their pro-rata share of unreimbursed expenses and capital expenditures for Springerville Unit 1 during the pendency of the arbitration. The arbitration panel also denied the Third-Party Owners’ motion for interim relief which had requested that TEP be enjoined from dispatching the Third-Party Owners’ unscheduled Springerville Unit 1 power and capacity. TEP has been scheduling, when economical, the Third-Party Owners’ entitlement share of power from Springerville Unit 1, as permitted under the Springerville Unit 1 facility support agreement, since June 14, 2015. As of December 31, 2015, TEP has billed the Third-Party Owners approximately $23 million for their pro-rata share of Springerville Unit 1 expenses and $4 million for their pro-rata share of capital expenditures, none of which had been paid as of February 17, 2016.
See Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K and Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings for additional information regarding the legal proceedings relating to the Third-Party Owners.
Potential Plant Retirements
TEP's 2014its 2016 Preliminary Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which. A Supplement to the Preliminary IRP was acknowledgedfiled on September 30, 2016, with the final 2017 IRP to be filed by the ACC in April 2015, reflected plans2017. TEP's Preliminary IRP and Supplement disclose TEP's plan to reduce its overall coal capacity by 492170 MW (32% of TEP's existing coal fleet) by 2018. TEP's 2014 IRP included retiring certain coal-fired generating facilities at San Juan Generating Station (San Juan)in 2017, and coal handling facilitiesoutlines options for further reductions at San Juan in 2022, Navajo in 2030, and Four Corners in 2031. TEP’s final IRP will address the H. Wilson Sundt Generating Station (Sundt) earlier thanlong-term viability of Navajo. TEP's existing generation fleet faces a number of uncertainties impacting the viability of continued operations including competition from other resources, fuel contract extensions, environmental regulations and the ability of existing owners to continue their current estimated useful lives. These facilities currently do not have the requisite emission control equipmentparticipation. Given this uncertainty, TEP may consider options that include changes in generation facility ownership shares, unit shutdowns, or sale of generation assets to meet proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.third-parties. TEP plans to seek regulatory recovery for amounts that would not otherwise be recovered if and when any assets are retired. TEP plans to file a preliminary IRP in March 2016 and is required to file its next IRP by April 2017.
See Part I, Item 1. Business, Environmental Matters of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding the impact of environmental matters on generation facility operations and Business, Overview of Business for additional information regarding TEP's generation facilities.
Navajo Generating Station
Navajo is located on a site that is leased from the Navajo Nation with an initial lease term through 2019. In February 2017, SRP, the operator of Navajo announced that they do not currently intend to operate Navajo past the current term of the lease. TEP supports continued operation of the plant operations.through December 2019 if a lease extension can be reached with the Navajo Nation. Without a lease extension, the owners would be forced to cease operations at Navajo this year to allow enough time for decommissioning to be completed before the current lease expires. As of December 31, 2016, TEP's NBV of Navajo was $40 million. Upon the retirement of Navajo, TEP will seek rate recovery of any unrecovered costs. See Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information.
Springerville Common Facilities Purchase Commitment
The Springerville Common Facilities leases have an initial term ending December 2017 for one lease and January 2021 for the other two leases.
In December 2016, TEP notified the owner participant and the lessor of the lease that expires in December 2017 that TEP had elected to purchase a 17.8% undivided ownership interest in the Springerville Common Facilities at the fixed purchase price of $38 million upon the expiration of the lease. Due to TEP's purchase commitment, in December 2016, TEP recorded an increase of $36 million to Current Obligations Under Capital Leases and Utility Plant Under Capital Lease, which represents the present value of the total purchase commitment, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Under the remaining two leases, TEP has options to: (i) renew the leases for periods of two or more years; or (ii) exercise the purchase options under these leases.
See Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information.
Springerville Coal Handling Facilities Capital Lease Purchase
TEP previously leased interests in the coal handling facilities at the Springerville Generating Station (Springerville Coal Handling Facilities) under two separate lease agreements (Springerville Coal Handling Facilities Leases). The lease agreements had an initial term that expired in April 2015 and provided TEP the option to renew the leases or to purchase the leased interests at the aggregate fixed price of $120 million. In April 2015, TEP exercised its option to purchase the facilities.
Upon theupon expiration of the lease term, TEP purchased an 86.7% undivided ownership interest in the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities bringing TEP's total ownership interest to 100%. Withat the completionfixed purchase price of $120 million.
Tri-State, the purchase, SRP was obligated to buy a 17.05% undivided interest in thelessee of Springerville Coal Handling Facilities from TEP for approximately $24 million. This transaction was completed in May 2015. Tri-State,Unit 3, is obligated to either: 1)(i) buy a 17.05% undivided interest in the facilities for approximately $24 millionmillion; or 2)(ii) continue to make payments to TEP for the use of the facilities. In March 2016, Tri-State has until Aprilnotified TEP that it was exercising its option to purchase the undivided interest in the facilities. As of December 31, 2015, the 17.05% undivided interest in the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities was classified as Assets Held for Sale, Net. However, as of December 31, 2016, TEP's management no longer believed the sale would be completed. As a result, in December 2016 Tri-State's 17.05% undivided interest in the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities was reclassified as Utility Plant from Assets Held for Sale, Net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. In 2016, TEP recorded $1 million of catch-up depreciation for the period of time the facilities were recorded in Assets Held for Sale, Net. In 2016, TEP was reimbursed $4 million per year in operations costs by Tri-State related to exercise its purchase option.portion of the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities.
Sales to Mining Customers
TEP's largest mining customer is taking initialtook steps to curtailreduce operational expenses by curtailing production in 2016 due to thea decline in commodity prices. As a result, retail sales to mining customers declined by 10% in 2016 compared with the same period in 2015. While TEP cannot predict the extent to which this customer will curtail production, how long commodity prices will remain low or the

25



total impact the prices will have on mining


production in the future. Atfuture, any future curtailment of mining production could negatively impact retail sales to mining customers. As of December 31, 2015,2016, mining customers made up 8%accounted for 11% of TEP's total electric sales.
The proposed Rosemont Copper Mine near Tucson, Arizona is in the permitting stage. If the Rosemont Copper Mine is constructedretail sales and reaches full production, it will become TEP's largest retail customer with an estimated load6% of approximately 85 to 120 MW.Retail Revenues.
Interest Rates
See Part II, Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk of this Form 10-K for information regarding interest rate risks and its impact on earnings.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Liquidity
Cash flows may vary during the year with cash flows from operations typically the lowest in the first quarter of the year and highest in the third quarter due to TEP’s summer peaking load. As a result of the varied seasonal cash flow, we will use, as needed, our revolving credit facility to assist in funding business activities. We believe that we have sufficient liquidity under our revolving credit facilitiesfacility to meet short-term working capital needs and to provide credit enhancement as necessary under energy procurement and hedging agreements. The availability and terms under which TEP has access to external financing depends on a variety of factors, including its credit ratings and conditions in the overall capital markets.
Available Liquidity
(in millions)As of December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
Cash and Cash Equivalents$56
$36
Amount Available under Revolving Credit Facility (1)
250
250
Total Liquidity$306
$286
(1) 
TEP's revolving credit facility which matures in 2020, provides for a $250 million of revolving credit commitmentcommitments with a LOCLetter of Credit (LOC) sublimit of $50 million.million through its original maturity date of October 2020. In October 2016, TEP extended the agreement one year to October 2021. The credit facility commitments will be reduced to $217.5 million in the final year of the agreement.
Future Liquidity Requirements
We expect to meet all of our financial obligations and other anticipated cash outflows for the foreseeable future. These obligations and anticipated cash outflows include, but are not limited to, dividend payments, debt maturities, and obligations included in the Contractual Obligations and forecasted Capital Expenditures tables below.
See Part III, Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk for additional information regarding TEP's market risks and Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding TEP's financing arrangements.
Summary of Cash FlowFlows
The table below presents net cash provided by (used for) operating, investing and financing activities:
Year Ended 
Increase
(Decrease)
 Year Ended 
Increase
(Decrease)
Years Ended 
Increase
(Decrease)
 Year Ended 
Increase
(Decrease)
(in millions)2015 2014 Percent 2013 Percent2016 2015 Percent 2014 Percent
Operating Activities$365
 $314
 16.2 % $346
 (9.2)%$425
 $365
 16.4 % $314
 16.2 %
Investing Activities(503) (518) (2.9)% (260) 99.2 %(376) (503) (25.2)% (518) (2.9)%
Financing Activities120
 253
 (52.6)% (141) 279.4 %(69) 120
 (157.5)% 253
 (52.6)%
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash(18) 49
 (136.7)% (55) 189.1 %(20) (18) (11.1)% 49
 (136.7)%
Cash, Beginning of Year74
 25
 196.0 % 80
 (68.8)%
Cash, End of Year$56
 $74
 (24.3)% $25
 196.0 %
Cash and Cash Equivalents, Beginning of Year56
 74
 (24.3)% 25
 196.0 %
Cash and Cash Equivalents, End of Year$36
 $56
 (35.7)% $74
 (24.3)%
Cash Flows forflows in 2016 reflect a reduction in capital expenditures compared with prior years and no new long-term debt or revolving credit agreement borrowings. Cash flows in both 2015 and 2014 included unusually large capital expenditures. These capital requirements were met with a combination of equity contributions from UNS Energy and long-term borrowings as discussed in Financing Activities below.

26




In 2015, we issued long-term debt and used the proceeds to repay revolving and term loans under our credit agreements and pay a portion of the purchase price for interests in the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities. In addition, we received an equity contribution from UNS Energy and used the proceeds to repay the outstanding balances under our revolving credit facilities and redeem long-term variable rate tax-exempt bonds which were called for redemption in June 2015.
In 2014, we received an equity contribution from UNS Energy and used the proceeds to pay for the purchase of both Gila River Unit 3 and Springerville Unit 1 leased assets.
Operating Activities
2016 compared with 2015
In 2016, net cash flows from operating activities increased by $60 million compared with 2015 primarily due to a:
$20 million temporary over-recovery of fuel and purchased power costs under the PPFAC mechanism;
$17 million decrease in cash paid for pension and other postretirement benefits funding;
$12.5 million increase in cash proceeds related to the settlement of operating costs related to Springerville Unit 1 incurred on behalf of the Third-Party Owners; and
$28 million increase attributable to timing differences in Accrued Payable and Accrued Charges.
The increase in net cash flows from operating activities was partially offset by an increase of $11 million in cash paid for incentive compensation in 2016 compared with the same period in 2015 in which no incentive compensation was paid. As a result of the Fortis acquisition in 2014, payments under the annual incentive compensation plan were accelerated to the third quarter of 2014 from the first quarter of 2015.
2015 compared with 2014
In 2015, net cash flows from operating activities increased by $51 million compared towith 2014 primarily due to:to a:
$39 million of higherincrease in cash receiptsproceeds from retail and wholesale sales, net of fuel and purchased power costs paid, driven primarily by an increase in the average PPFAC rate; and
$34 million decrease in lower cash paid for acquisition-related costs and incentive compensation primarily due to the 2014 acquisition.
The increase in net cash flows from operating activities was partially offset by $16 million of higher cash paid forto fund pension and retiree funding.other postretirement plans.
2014Investing Activities
2016 compared with 20132015
In 2014,2016, net cash flows from operatingused for investing activities decreased by $32$127 million compared to 2013 primarily due to:
$27 million of higher cash paid for acquisition-related costs and incentive compensationwith 2015 primarily due to a:
$120 million purchase in April 2015 of an additional 86.7% undivided ownership interest in the 2014 acquisition;Springerville Coal Handling Facilities increasing its total ownership interest to 100%; and
$683 million of higherdecrease in cash paid in 2016 for capital lease interest.expenditures primarily due to construction cost in 2015 of a new 500kV transmission line.
Investing ActivitiesThe decrease in net cash flows used for investing activities was partially offset by a:
$85 million purchase in September 2016 of a 50.5% undivided ownership interest in Springerville Unit 1 compared to a $46 million purchase in January 2015 of a 24.8% undivided ownership interest in the same generation facility;
$24 million in cash proceeds in May 2015 from the sale of a 17.05% undivided ownership interest in Springerville Coal Handling Facilities to SRP; and
$12 million increase in cash paid in 2016 for the purchase of renewable energy credits.


2015 compared with 2014
In 2015, net cash flows used for investing activities decreased by $15 million compared with 2014 primarily due to:to a:
$164 million purchase in December 2014 of a 75% undivided ownership interest in Gila River Unit 3; and
$20 million purchase in December 2014 of a 10.6% interest in Springerville Unit 1.
The decrease in net cash flows used for investing activities was partially offset by:by a:
$12096 million net purchase in April 2015 of the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities consisting of the $120 million purchase of an additional 86.7% undivided ownership interest, in the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities partially offset by a $24 million sale of cash received for the sale, in May 2015, of a 17.05% undivided ownership interest in the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities to SRP;
$46 million purchase in January 2015 of an additional 24.8% undivided ownership interest in Springerville Unit 1 increasing our total ownership interest to 49.5%;
$11 million decrease in lower cash receipts for contributions in aid of construction received; and
$10 million of higherincrease in capital expenditures to fund system reinforcement through replacements and betterments.
2014Financing Activities
2016 compared with 20132015
In 2014,2016, net cash flows used for investingfrom financing activities increaseddecreased by $258$189 million compared with 20132015 primarily due to:to a:
$164299 million purchase,decrease in December 2014,cash proceeds in 2016 for the issuance of a 75% interestlong-term debt in Gila River Unit 3;
$71 million of higher capital expenditures to fund the construction of new solar projects and improvements to our generating facilities;February 2015; and
$20180 million decrease in cash proceeds in 2016 from a UNS Energy equity contribution in June 2015.
The decrease in net cash flows from financing activities was partially offset by a:
$209 million decrease in cash paid in 2016 for the purchase of $130 million in December 2014,tax-exempt long-term debt in January 2015, and the retirement of a 10.6% interest$79 million in Springerville Unit 1.

27



Financing Activitieslong-term debt in August 2015; and
$85 million decrease in cash paid in 2016, net of proceeds borrowed, under TEP's revolving credit facilities.
2015 compared with 2014
In 2015, net cash flows from financing activities decreased by $133 million compared with 2014 primarily due to:
$209 million increase in higher cash payments duepaid to the purchase of $130 million in fixed rate tax-exempt long-term debt in January 2015, and the retirement of $79 million in variable rate tax-exempt bonds in August 2015;
$170 million decrease in lowercash proceeds borrowed and higher repayments under TEP's revolving credit facilities;
$45 million decrease in lower cash proceeds from UNS Energy's equity contributions; and
$10 million increase in higher cash paid for dividend payments.
The decrease in net cash flows from financing activities was partially offset by:
$152 million decrease in lower cash payments due to the expiration of capital lease obligations in 2015; and
$150 million increase in higher cash proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt, in February 2015.
2014 compared with 2013
In 2014, net cash flows from financing activities increased by $394 million compared with 2013 primarily due to:
$225 million in higher cash proceeds from UNS Energy's equity contributions made to complete the purchases for interest in Gila River Unit 3 and Springerville Unit 1;
$149 million in higher cash proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt; and
$85 million in higher cash borrowings (net of repayments) under TEP's revolving credit facilities.
The increase in net cash flows from financing activities was partially offset by $66 million in higher cash payments of capital lease obligations.
External Sources of Liquidity
Short-Term Investments
TEP’s short-term investment policy governs the investment of excess cash balances. We regularlyperiodically review and update this policy in response to market conditions. AtAs of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP's short-term investments included highly-rated and liquid money market funds.


Access to Revolving Credit FacilitiesFacility
We have access to working capital through a revolving credit agreement with lenders. The 2015 Credit Agreement provides for a $250 million revolving credit commitment and LOC facility, due in October 2020. The LOC sublimit is $50 million. TEP expects that amounts borrowed under the credit agreement will be used for working capital and other general corporate purposes and that LOCs will be issued from time to time to support energy procurement and hedging transactions. NoAs of December 31, 2016, no amounts were drawn under the 2015 Credit Agreement at December 31, 2015.
In June 2015, the 2014 Credit Agreement was terminated. In October 2015, the 2010 Credit Agreement was terminated.revolving credit facility.
For details on TEP's credit facilitiesfacility see Note 6 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information.
Debt Financing
We use debt financing to meet a portion of our capital needs and lower our overall cost of capital. We are exposed to adverse changes in interest rates to the extent that we rely on variable rate financing. OurTEP's cost of capital is also affected by our credit ratingsratings.
In April 2015, we filed aJanuary 2016, the ACC issued an order granting TEP financing application withauthority. The order extends and expands the ACC. The application requests extending and expanding the existingprevious financing authority to TEP by: (i) extending authority from December 2016 to December 2020; (ii) increasing the outstanding long-term debt limitation from $1.7 billion to $2.2 billion; (iii) allowing parent equity contributions of up to $400 million; and (iv) extending currentcontinuing the interest rate hedging authority. The ACC issued an order granting such authority in January 2016.

28



As discussed in Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors of this Form 10-K, we may need to redeem or defease certain tax-exempt bonds outstanding. To the extent that is required, we would need to issue new taxable debt or enter into a new bank financing.
We have no new financing planned for 2016.plans to raise additional capital in 2017. TEP has, from time to time, refinanced or repurchased portions of its outstanding debt before scheduled maturity. Depending on market conditions, TEP may refinance other debt issuances or make additional debt repurchases in the future. For details
Credit Ratings
Credit ratings affect our access to capital markets and supplemental bank financing. As of December 31, 2016, TEP’s credit ratings for senior unsecured debt were A3 from Moody’s and BBB+ from S&P Global Ratings.
TEP's credit ratings are dependent on changesa number of factors, both quantitative and qualitative, and are subject to change at any time. The disclosure of these credit ratings is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or maturities on long-term debt, see Note 6hold TEP securities. Each rating should be evaluated independently of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information.any other ratings.
Debt Restrictive Covenants
The 2015 Credit Agreement, the 2010 Reimbursement Agreement, and the 2013 Covenants AgreementCertain of TEP's debt agreements contain pricing based on TEP’s credit ratings. A change in TEP’s credit ratings can cause an increase or decrease in the amount of interest TEP pays on its borrowings, and the amount of fees it pays for its LOCs and unused commitments. Also, under certain agreements, should TEP fail to maintain compliance with covenants, lenders could accelerate the maturity of all amounts outstanding. AtAs of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP was in compliance with these covenants.
TEP conducts its wholesale marketing and risk management activities under certain master agreements. Under these agreements, whereby TEP may be required to post credit enhancements in the form of cash or aan LOC due to exposures exceeding unsecured credit limits provided to TEP, changes in contract values, a changechanges in TEP’s credit ratings, or if there has been a material changechanges in TEP’s creditworthiness. As of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP had posted less than $1 million inno LOCs foras credit enhancementenhancements with wholesaleits counterparties.
We do not have any provisions in any of our debt or lease agreements that would cause an event of default or cause amounts to become due and payable in the event of a credit rating downgrade.
Credit RatingsContribution from Parent
OurTEP received no equity contributions in 2016. UNS Energy made an equity contribution to TEP of $180 million in 2015 and $225 million in 2014. The contributions were used to repay revolving credit ratings affect our accessloans, redeem bonds, and provide additional liquidity to capital markets and supplemental bank financing. At December 31, 2015, TEP’s credit ratings for senior unsecured debt were A3 from Moody’s and BBB+ from both Standard & Poor’s and Fitch. As of February 2016, at TEP's request for commercial reasons, Fitch withdrew its rating on TEP.
TEP's credit ratings are dependent on a number of factors, both quantitative and qualitative, and are subjectDividends Paid to change at any time. The disclosure of these credit ratings is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold TEP securities. Each rating should be evaluated independently of any other ratings.
DividendsParent
TEP declared and paid $50 million in dividends to UNS Energy in 2016 and 2015 and $40 million in 2014 and 2013.2014.
The ACC's approval of the acquisition of UNS Energy by Fortis in August 2014 contained a condition restricting subsidiaryTEP's dividend payments to UNS Energy by TEP to no more than 60 percent60% of TEP's annual net income for the earlier of five years or until such time that TEP's equity capitalization reaches 50 percent of total capitalreached 50% as accounted for in accordance with GAAP. The ratios used to determine the dividend restrictions will be calculated for each calendar year and reported to the ACC annually beginning on April 1, 2016. As of December 31, 2015,In June 2016, TEP had not yet reached the 50 percent of total capital and was therefore still restricted by the condition contained in the ACC's approval order.equity capitalization threshold.


Capital Expenditures
TEP's routine capital expenditures include funds used for customer growth, system reinforcement, replacements and betterments, and costs to comply with environmental rules and regulations. In 2016, total capital expenditures of $335 million, included the purchase of the remaining ownership interest in Springerville Unit 1. In 2015, total capital expenditures of $500 million, included the purchase of an undivided ownership interest in Springerville Unit 1 and the remaining ownership interest in the Springerville Coal Handling facilities.Facilities. In 2014, total capital expenditures of $507 million, included the purchase of an interest in Gila River Unit 3, and an undivided ownership interestinterests in Springerville Unit 1. Construction1, and construction costs for a new 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line in Pinal County that began in December 2014 and concluded in late 2015, totaled $79 million.2015.

29



With the exception of 2017, weWe expect capital requirements to remain stable from 20162017 through 2020.2021. TEP's forecasted capital expenditures are summarized below:
(in millions)2016 2017 2018 2019 20202017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Generation Facilities:                  
Environmental Compliance$39
 $27
 $11
 $2
 $2
$23
 $10
 $1
 $4
 $2
Renewable Energy27
 27
 27
 27
 27

 26
 26
 26
 26
Springerville Common Lease Purchase
 38
 
 
 
38
 
 
 
 9
Other Generation Facilities34
 82
 31
 36
 39
67
 49
 60
 79
 108
Total Generation Facilities100
 174
 69
 65
 68
128
 85
 87
 109
 145
Transmission and Distribution122
 112
 159
 154
 163
151
 152
 125
 142
 148
General and Other (1)
52
 46
 56
 57
 54
66
 47
 106
 53
 37
Total Capital Expenditures$274
 $332
 $284
 $276
 $285
$345
 $284
 $318
 $304
 $330
(1) 
General and Other primarily includes cost for information technology, as well as fleet, facilities, and communication equipment.
These estimates are subject to continuing review and adjustment. Actual capital expenditures may differ from these estimates due to changesfluctuations in business and market conditions, construction schedules, possible early plant closures, changes in generation resources, environmental requirements, state or federal regulations, and other factors. We expect to pay for forecasted capital expenditures with cash on hand, internally generated funds and short-term revolverexternal financings, which may include issuances of long-term debt or other borrowings.


Contractual Obligations
The following chart displays TEP’s contractual obligations by maturity and by type of obligation as of December 31, 2015:2016:
  Payments Due by Period  Payments Due by Period
(in millions)Total Less than 1 Year 1-3 Years 3-5 Years More than 5 YearsTotal Less than 1 Year 1-3 Years 3-5 Years More than 5 Years
Long-Term Debt
        
        
Principal (1)
$1,466
 $
 $100
 $117
 $1,249
$1,466
 $
 $137
 $330
 $999
Interest (2)
769
 59
 120
 116
 474
709
 59
 118
 111
 421
Capital Lease Obligations (3)
77
 17
 30
 30
 
97
 54
 24
 19
 
Operating Leases: (4)

        
        
Land Easements and Rights-of-Way82
 1
 2
 2
 77
81
 1
 2
 3
 75
Operating Leases Other9
 1
 2
 2
 4
9
 1
 2
 2
 4
Purchase Obligations:
        
        
Fuel, Including Transportation (6)(5)
580
 78
 125
 90
 287
631
 100
 152
 110
 269
Purchased Power28
 28
 
 
 
32
 32
 
 
 
Transmission38
 6
 12
 7
 13
78
 18
 38
 12
 10
Renewable Purchase Power Agreements (8)(6)
1,054
 61
 122
 121
 750
1,048
 64
 128
 126
 730
RES Performance-Based Incentives (9)(7)
107
 8
 16
 16
 67
99
 8
 16
 16
 59
Acquisition of Springerville Common Facilities (10)
106
 
 38
 
 68
Other Long-Term Liabilities: (11) (12)

        
Acquisition of Springerville Common Facilities (8)
68
 
 
 68
 
Other Long-Term Liabilities: (9) (10)

        
Restricted and Performance-Based Stock Units2
 
 2
 
 
4
 
 4
 
 
Pension & Other Post Retirement Obligations (13)
77
 16
 11
 13
 37
Pension and Other Postretirement (11)
78
 16
 12
 13
 37
Total Contractual Obligations$4,395
 $275
 $580
 $514
 $3,026
$4,400
 $353
 $633
 $810
 $2,604
(1) 
$37 million of TEP’s variable rate bonds are backed by an LOC issued pursuant to the 2010 Reimbursement Agreement, which expires in December 2019. Although the variable rate bond matures in 2032, the above table reflects a redemption or repurchase of such bond in 2019 as though the LOC terminates without replacement upon expiration of the 2010 Reimbursement Agreement. TEP's 2013 tax-exempt variable rate IDRBs,Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IDRB), which have an aggregate principal amount of $100 million and mature in 2032, are subject to mandatory tender for purchase in 2018. Total long-term debt is not reduced by $11$10 million of related unamortized debt issuance costs or $3 million of unamortized original issue discount.

30



(2) 
Excludes interest on revolving credit facilities and includes interest on TEP's 2013 tax-exempt IDRBs through the end of the current five-year term.
(3) 
Effective with commercial operation of Springerville Unit 3 in July 2006 and Unit 4 in December 2009, Tri-State and SRP began reimbursing TEP for various operating costs related to the common facilities on an ongoing basis. The common facilities includedinclude assets leased by TEP under the Springerville Common and Springerville Coal Handling Facilities Leases.at Springerville. Upon expiration of the Springerville Coal Handling Leaselease in April 2015, TEP purchased the interests in those assets. SRP then purchased an undivided interest in thosethe coal handling assets from TEP. Tri-State and SRP each continue to reimburse TEP for their shares of common assets owned or leased by TEP. TEP was reimbursed for $11$10 million of operationoperating costs in 2015,2016 by SRP and absent a purchase of an interest in the coal handling facilities by Tri-State willand expects to be reimbursed $10 million of operationoperating costs in 2016.2017. Capital Lease Obligations do not reflect any reduction associated with this reimbursement. Our capital lease obligation balances decline over time as scheduled capital lease payments are made by TEP.
(4) 
TEP's operating lease expense is primarily for rail cars, office facilities, land easements, and rights-of-way with varying terms, provisions, and expiration dates.
(5) 
Contemporaneously with the sale of SJCC's stock in January 2016, the existing coal sale agreement terminated and a new Coal Supply Agreement (CSA) became effective. The new CSA is between SJCC and PNM and continues through June 30, 2022. TEP is not a party to the new CSA, but has minimum purchase obligations under restructured ownership agreements at San Juan. Estimated future payments, not included in the table above, are $21 million in 2016, $23 million in 2017, $24 million in 2018 and 2019, $23 million in 2020, and $22 million through the end of the contract.
(6)
Excludes TEP’s liability for final environmental reclamation at the coal mines which supply the Navajo, San Juan, and Four Corners generating stations as the timing of payment has not been determined. See Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding TEP’s share of reclamation costs.
(7)(6) 
TEP enters into long-term renewable power purchase agreementsPPAs which require TEP to purchase 100% of certain renewable energy generation facilities output once commercial operation status is achieved. While TEP is not required to make payments under these contracts if power is not delivered, the table above includes estimated future payments based on expected power deliveries. See Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding PPAs.


(8)
In February 2016, a facility achieved commercial operation status. The related contract expires in 2036. Estimated future payments, not included in the table above, are $3 million in each of 2016 through 2020 and $43 million through the end of the contract.
(9)(7) 
TEP has entered into REC purchase agreements to purchase the environmental attributes from retail customers with solar installations. Payments for the RECs are termed Performance-Based Incentives (PBIs) and are paid in contractually agreed upon intervals (usually quarterly) based on metered renewable energy production. PBIs are recoverable through the RES tariff. See Note 27 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding TEP's RES tariff.PBIs.
(10)(8) 
The Springerville Common Facilities Leases have an initial term toending December 2017 for one lease and January 2021 for the other two leases, subject to optional renewal periods of two or more years through 2025. Instead of extendingyears. In December 2016, TEP entered into a commitment to purchase the leases,lease, which has an initial term ending December 2017. TEP may renew the other two leases or exercise its remaining fixed-price purchase options.
(11)(9) 
Excludes asset retirement obligationsAsset Retirement Obligations (ARO) of $33 million expected to occur through 2066.
(12)(10) 
Excludes unrecognized tax benefits of $5$12 million. At this time we are unable to make a reasonably reliable estimate of the timing of payments in individual years in connection with these tax liabilities.
(13)(11) 
These obligations represent TEP’s expected contributions to pension plans in 2016,2017, expected benefit payments for its unfunded Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP), and expected retiree benefit costs to cover medical and life insurance claims as determined by the plans’ actuaries. Due to the significant impact that returns on plan assets and changes in discount rates might have on payment obligation amounts, other contributions beyond 2017 are excluded beyond 2016.excluded.
We expect to pay for forecasted capital expenditures with cash on hand, internally generated funds, and short-term revolver borrowings.
Off Balance Sheet Arrangements
Other than the unrecorded contractual obligations in the table above, we do not have any arrangements or relationships with entities that are not consolidated into the financial statements.
Income Tax Position
Prior year tax legislation and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, include provisions that make qualified property placed in service between 2010 and 2019 eligible for bonus depreciation for tax purposes. In addition, the IRS issued new guidance related to the treatment of expenditures to maintain, replace, or improve property. These provisions are an acceleration of tax benefits TEP otherwise would have received over 20 years and have created net operating loss

31



carryforwards that can be used to offset future taxable income. As a result, TEP did not pay any federal or state income taxes in 20152016 and does not expect to make any payments until 2020.
Environmental Matters
The EPA regulates the amount of sulfur dioxide (SOSO2), nitrogen oxide (NONOx), carbon dioxide (COCO2), particulate matter, mercury, and other by-products produced by power plants.generation facilities. TEP may incur addedadditional costs to comply with future changes in federal and state environmental laws, regulations, and permit requirements at its power plants.generation facilities. Environmental laws and regulations are subject to a range of interpretations, which may ultimately be resolved by the courts. Because these laws and regulations continue to evolve, TEP is unable to predict the impact of the changing laws and regulations on its operations and consolidated financial results. Complying with these changes may reduce operating efficiency. TEP capitalized $40 million in 2016, $33 million in 2015, and $11 million in 2014 and $5 million in 2013 in costs incurred to comply with environmental rules and regulations. In addition, we recorded O&Moperations and maintenance expenses of $6 million in 2016, 2015, $5 million in 2014, and $8 million in 2013.2014. TEP expects to recover the cost of environmental compliance from its ratepayers.through Retail Rates.
Hazardous Air Pollutant Requirements
In February 2012, the EPA issued final rules for the control of mercury emissions and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants.generation facilities. Based on the EPA's final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rules, additional emission control equipment would have been required by April 2015. TEP, as operator of the Springerville and Sundt, generating stations, and the operators of Navajo and Four Corners received extensions until April 2016 to comply with the MATS rules.
In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Michigan v. EPA to uphold the MATS rules requiring power plants to control mercury and other emissions. The Supreme Court held that the EPA did not adequately consider “cost” before determining that MATS was “appropriate and necessary.” The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the MATS rules to the EPA for further consideration.
At this time, despite Despite the U.S. Supreme CourtJune 2015 ruling, the MATS rules remain in force and effect. TEP will proceedproceeded with its planned MATS compliance activity at each generation facilities.
In March 2016, the installation of our facilities. Additionally, Arizona has an Arizona-specific mercury rule in place that will become effective and applicable to our Arizona facilities in the event the Federal rule is struck down. Our compliance strategy is intended to ensure compliance with both the Federal and the State rule, as applicable.
TEP'scontrol systems was completed at Navajo. TEP’s share of the estimatedinstallation costs were approximately $1 million. In addition, TEP completed the installation of mercury emission control systems on Units 1 and 2 at Springerville in March 2016. TEP’s share of the installation costs to complywere approximately $3 million. At this time, all generation facilities TEP operates or is a participant in are in compliance with the MATS rules includes the following:
rules.
(in millions)Navajo 
Springerville(1)
Capital Expenditures$1
 $5
Annual O&M Expenses$1
 $1
Compliance Year2016 2016

(1)
Total capital expenditures and annual O&M expenses represent amounts for Springerville Units 1 and 2, with estimated costs split equally between the two units. In January 2015, TEP completed the purchase of 24.8% of Springerville Unit 1, bringing its total ownership interest to 49.5%. With the completion of the purchase, the Third-Party Owners are responsible for 50.5% of environmental costs attributable to Springerville Unit 1. TEP will continue to be responsible for 100% of environmental costs attributable to Springerville Unit 2.
TEP expects no additional capital expenditures or O&M expenses will be incurred to comply with the MATS rules at Four Corners, Sundt, and San Juan Generating Stations.
Regional Haze Rules
The EPA's Regional Haze Rules require emission controls known as BARTBest Alternative Retrofit Technology (BART) for certain industrial facilities emitting air pollutants that reduce visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. The rule calls for all states to establish goals and emission reduction strategies for improving visibility. States must submit these goals and strategies to the EPA for approval. Because Navajo and Four Corners are located on land leased from the Navajo Nation, they are not subject to state oversight; the EPA oversees regional haze planning for these power plants.generation facilities.
In the western U.S.,United States, Regional Haze BART determinations have focused on controls for NOx, often resulting in a requirement to install Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). ComplyingThe costs to comply with the BART rule, and with other future environmental rules, may make it economically impractical to continue operating all or a portion of the Navajo San Juan, and Four Corners power plants or for individual owners to continue to participate in these power plants.generation facilities. The BART provisions do not apply to Springerville Units 1 and 2 since they were constructed in the 1980s, after the time frame as designated by the rules. Other provisions of the

32



Regional Haze Rules requiring further emission reductions are not likely to impact Springerville operations until after 2018.2021. In December 2016, the EPA signed a final rule, entitled "Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans." Among other things, the rule changes the date for submittal of the next Regional Haze implementation plan from 2018 to 2021. Based on recent Regional Haze requirement timeframes, TEP anticipates that impacts, if any, to Springerville will likely occur three to five years after the 2021 plan submittal date. TEP cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters.
TEP's estimated NOx emissions control costs involved in meeting theseto comply with the rules are:include the following:
(in millions)Navajo San Juan Four Corners SundtNavajo Four Corners
Capital Expenditures$28
 $12
 $44
 $12
$47
 $44
Annual O&M Expenses$1
 $1
 $2
 $6
Annual Operations and Maintenance Expenses2
 2
Compliance Year2030 2016 2018 20172030 2018
Navajo
In August 2014, the EPA published a final Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) which provides that one unit at Navajo will be shut down by 2020, SCR (or the equivalent) will be installed on the remaining two units by 2030, and conventional coal-fired generation will cease by December 2044. The final BART rule includes options that accommodate potential ownership changes at the plant. The plant has until December 2019 to notify the EPA of how it will comply with the FIP.
Four Corners
In December 2013, APS, on behalf of the co-owners of Four Corners, notified the EPA that they have chosen an alternative BART compliance strategy. As a result, APS closed Units 1, 2, and 3 in December 2013 and agreed to the installation of SCR on Units 4 and 5 by July 2018. TEP owns 7% of Four Corners Units 4 and 5.
San Juan
In October 2014, the EPA published a final rule approving a revised State Implementation Plan (SIP) covering BART requirements for San Juan, which includes the closure of Units 2 and 3 by December 2017 and the installation of Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) on Units 1 and 4 by February 2016.4. TEP owns 50% of Units 1 and 2 at San Juan. The SIP approval references a New Source Review permit issued by the New Mexico Environment Department in November 2013 which, among other things, calls for balanced draft upgrades on San Juan Unit 1 to reduce particulate matter emissions. PNM, the operator of San Juan, is currently installing SNCR. Balanced draft modifications to San Juan Unit 1were completed the installation of SNCR in June 2015. TEP’sFebruary 2016. TEP's share of the balanced draft upgrades was approximately $22installation costs were $12 million. In December 2015, PNM obtained New Mexico Public Regulation Commission approval to shut down Units 2 and 3 at San Juan.
AtAs of December 31, 2015,2016, the net book valueNBV of TEP's share in San Juan Unit 2 including construction work in progress, was $104$98 million. Consistent with the 2013 Rate Order, TEP has requested authorization from the ACC towill apply excess depreciation reserves against the unrecovered net book valueNBV as approved in its 2015the 2017 Rate Case.
Four Corners
In December 2013, APS, on behalfOrder. See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding the co-owners of Four Corners, notified the EPA that they have chosen an alternative BART compliance strategy; as a result, APS closed Units 1, 2, and 3 in December 2013 and agreed to the installation of SCR on Units 4 and 5 by July 2018. TEP owns 7% of Four Corners Units 4 and 5.2017 Rate Order.
Sundt
In June 2014, the EPA issued a final rule that would requirerequired TEP to either: (i) install, by mid-2017, SNCR and dry sorbent injection if Sundt Unit 4 of the H. Wilson Sundt Generating Station (Sundt) continuescontinued to use coal as a fuel source; or (ii) permanently eliminate coal as a fuel source as a better-than-BART alternative by the end of 2017. Under the rule, TEP iswas required to notify the EPA of its decision by March 2017. In March 2016, TEP notified the EPA of its decision to permanently eliminate coal as a fuel source to comply with the better-than-BART alternative emission limits. See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information.
At

As of December 31, 2015,2016, the net book valueNBV of the Sundt coal handling facilities at Sundt was $16 million. In August 2015, TEP exhausted its existing coal supply at Sundt and has been operating Sundt with natural gas as a primary fuel source. TEP expects to retire the Sundt coal handling facilities earlier than expected, and has requested towill apply excess depreciation reserves against the unrecovered net book value in its 2015 Rate Case. The estimated NOx emissions control costsNBV as approved in the table above will not be expended if Sundt's coal handling facilities are retired early.2017 Rate Order. See Note 2 for additional information regarding the 2017 Rate Order.
Greenhouse Gas Regulation
In August 2015, the EPA issued the Clean Power Plan (CPP)CPP limiting CO2 emissions from existing and new fossil fueled power plants.generation facilities. The CPP establishes state-level CO2 emission rates and mass-based goals that apply to fossil fuel-fired generation. The plan targets CO2 emissions reductions for existing facilities by 2030 and establishes interim goals that begin in 2022. States arewere required to develop and submit a final compliance plan, or an initial plan with an extension request, to the EPA by September 2016. States that receivereceived an extension mustare required to submit a final completed plan to the EPA by September 2018. TEP will continue to work with the other Arizona and New Mexico utilities, as well as the appropriate regulatory agencies, to develop the state compliance plans. TEP is unable to determine how the final CPP rule will impact its facilities until state plans are developed and approved by the EPA. TEP cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters.

33



The EPA incorporated the compliance obligations for existing power plantsgeneration facilities located onin Indian nations,Country, like the Navajo Nation, in the existing sources rule and a newly proposed Federal Plan using a compliance method similar to that of the states. The proposed Federal Plan would be implemented for any Indian nationNation and/or state that does not submit a plan or that does not have an EPA or state approved state plan. TEP will work with the participants at Four Corners and Navajo to determine how this revision may impact compliance and operations at both facilities. TEP has submitted comments on the proposed Federal Plan impacting our facilities, including Four Corners and Navajo, stating, among other things, that the EPA should not regulate the greenhouse gases on the Navajo Nation because it is not appropriate or necessary. The reduction of greenhouse gases achieved due to the shutdowns resulting from Regional Haze compliance will be equivalent to those required under the CPP rule. TEP cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters.
TEP's compliance requirements under the CPP are subject to the outcomes of potential proceedings and litigation challenging the rule. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay effectively ordering the EPA to stop CPP implementation efforts until legal challenges to the regulation have been resolved. The ruling introduces uncertainty as to whether and when the states and utilities will have to comply with the CPP rule. TEP will continue to work with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to determine what, if any, actions need to be taken in light of the ruling.
In September 2016, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the CPP. A decision is not expected until early 2017. TEP anticipates thatwill continue to work with the rulingother Arizona and New Mexico utilities, as well as the appropriate regulatory agencies, to develop the state compliance plans. TEP is unable to determine how the final CPP rule will likely delayimpact its facilities until state plans are developed and approved by the requirement to submit a plan or request an extension underEPA. TEP cannot predict the CPP by September 2016.ultimate outcome of these matters.
Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation
In April 2015, the EPA issued a final rule requiring all coal ash and other coal combustion residuals to be treated as a solid waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for disposal in landfills and/or surface impoundments while allowing for the continued recycling of coal ash. TEP does not own or operate any impoundments. Under the rule, the Springerville Generating Station (Springerville) ash landfill is classified as an existing landfill and is not subject to the lateral expansion requirements. However, TEP will incur additional costs for site preparation and monitoring at Springerville to be fully compliant with the rule. TEP’s share of the cost at Springerville is estimated to be $2 million, the majority of which is expected to be capital expenditures. TEP currently estimates its share of the costs to be $5 million at Four Corners, $3 million at Navajo, and less than $1 million at San Juan, the majority of which are expected to be capital expenditures.
See Capital Expenditures above for TEP's actual and forecasted environmental-related cost.environmental compliance costs.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires management to apply accounting policies and to make estimates and assumptions that affect results of operations and the amounts of assets and liabilities reported in the financial statements and related notes. Management believes that the areas described below require significant judgment in the application of accounting policy or in making estimates and assumptions that are inherently uncertain and that may change in subsequent periods. Additional information on TEP’s other significant accounting policies can be found in Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
Accounting for Regulated Operations
We account for our regulated electric operations based onin accordance with accounting standards that allow the actions of our regulators, the ACC and the FERC, to be reflected in our financial statements. Regulator actions may cause us to capitalize certain costs that would otherwise be included as an expense, or in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI), in the current period by unregulated companies. Regulatory assets represent incurred costs that have been deferred because they are probable


of future recovery in customer rates. Regulatory liabilities generally represent expected future costs that have already been collected from customers. We evaluate regulatory assets and liabilities each period and believe future recovery or settlement is probable. Our assessment includes consideration of recent rate orders, historical regulatory treatment of similar costs, and changes in the regulatory and political environment. If management's assessment is ultimately different than actual regulatory outcomes, the impact on our results of operation, financial position, and future cash flows could be material.
AtAs of December 31, 2015,2016, regulatory liabilities net of regulatory assets on the balance sheet totaled $96 million at TEP.$95 million. There are no current or expected proposals or changes in the regulatory environment that impact our ability to apply accounting guidance for regulated operations. If we conclude, in a future period, that our operations no longer meet the criteria in this guidance, we would reflect our regulatory pension assets in AOCI and recognize the impact of other regulatory assets and liabilities in the income statement, both of which would be material to our financial statements. See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding regulatory matters.

34



Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations
We are requiredGAAP requires us to record the fair value of a liability for a legal obligation to retire a long-lived tangible asset in the period in which the liability is incurred. This includes obligations resulting from conditional future events. We incur legal obligations as a result of environmental regulations imposed by State and Federal regulators, contractual agreements, and other factors. To estimate the liability, management must use significant judgment and assumptions in: determining whether a legal obligation exists to remove assets; estimating the probability of a future event for a conditional obligation; estimating the fair value of the cost of removal; estimating when final removal will occur; and estimating the credit-adjusted risk-free interest rates to be used to discount the future liabilities. Changes that may arise over time with regard to these assumptions and determinations will change amounts recorded in the future as expense for asset retirement obligations.AROs. TEP primarily defers costs associated with the majority of its legal AROs as regulatory assets because these costs are included in depreciation rates approved for recovery by the ACC. Deferred costs are amortized over the life of the underlying asset.
TEP identified legal obligations to retire generation plant assetsfacilities specified in land leases for its jointly-owned Navajo and Four Corners Generating Stations.facilities. The land on which these stations reside is leased from the Navajo Nation. The provisions of the leases require the lessees to remove the facilities upon request of the Navajo Nation at expiration of the leases. TEP also has certain environmental obligations at the Luna, San Juan, Sundt and Springerville Generating Stations.Springerville. TEP estimates that its share of the AROs to remove the Navajo and Four Corners facilities and settle the Luna, San Juan, Sundt, Gila River, and Springerville environmental obligations will be approximately $157 million at the retirement dates. Additionally, TEP entered into ground lease agreements with certain land owners for the installation of photovoltaic (PV)PV assets. The provisions of the PV ground leases require TEP to remove the PV facilities upon expiration of the leases. TEP's ARO related to the PV assets is estimated to be approximately $30$26 million at the retirement dates. No other legal obligations to retire generation plant assets werehave been identified.
TEP has various transmission and distribution lines that operate under leases and rights-of-way that contain end dates and may contain site restoration clauses. TEP operates transmission and distribution lines as if they will be operated in perpetuity and wouldwill continue to be used or sold without land remediation. As such, there are no AROs for these assets.
The total net present value of TEP's ARO liability was $32$33 million atas of December 31, 2015.2016. ARO liabilities are reported in Regulatory and Other Liabilities—Other on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. See Note 3 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding AROs.
Additionally, the authorized depreciation rates for TEP include a component designed to accrue the future costs of retiring assets for which no legal obligations exist. The accumulated balances atas of December 31, 20152016, represent non-legal asset retirement obligationARO accruals, less actual removal costs incurred, net of salvage proceeds realized, and are included in Regulatory and Other Liabilities, Regulatory Liabilitiesrecorded as a regulatory liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.balance sheet. See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information.
Pension and Other RetireePostretirement Benefit Plan Assumptions
TEP records plan assets, obligations, and expenses related tothe underfunded amount for its pension and other retiree benefit plans based on actuarial valuations, which include key assumptions on discount rates,postretirement obligations as a liability and a regulatory asset to reflect expected returns on plan assets, compensation increases, and health care cost trend rates. These actuarial assumptions are reviewed annually and modified as appropriate. The effectrecovery of modifications is generally recorded or amortized over future periods. We believe that the assumptions used in recording obligations are reasonable based on prior experience, market conditions, and the advice of plan actuaries. Note 8 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K discusses the assumptions used in the calculation of pension plan and other retiree plan obligations.
TEP is required to recognize the underfunded status of its defined benefit pension and other retiree plans as a liability. The underfunded status ispostretirement obligations through the difference between the fair value of the plans assets and the projected benefit obligation for pension plans or accumulated retiree benefit obligation for other retiree benefit plans.rates charged to retail customers. As the funded status, discount rates, and actuarial facts change, the liability will vary significantly in future years. TEP records the underfunded amount for its pensionKey assumptions used include:
discount rates used to determine obligations;
expected returns on plan assets;
compensation increases;


mortality assumptions; and other retiree obligations as a liability and a regulatory asset to reflect expected recovery of pension and other retiree obligations through the rates charged to retail customers.
health care cost trend rates.
Discount Rates
AtAs of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP discounted its future pension plan obligations at rates between 4.5% and 4.6%4.2% and its other retireepostretirement plan obligations at a rate of 4.2%4.0%. The discount rate for future pension plan and other retireepostretirement plan obligations is determined annually based on the rates currently available on high-quality, non-callable, long-term bonds. The discount rate is based on a corporate yield curve using an average yield between the 60th and 90th percentile of AA-graded U.S. corporate bonds with future cash flows that match the timing and amount of expected future benefit payments.
For TEP’s pension plans, a 25-basis point change in the discount rate would increase or decrease the Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO) by approximately $15

35



million and the plan expense by $1 million. For TEP’s other retiree benefit plan, a 25-basis point change in the discount rate would increase or decrease the Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation (APBO) by approximately $2 million.
We measured2016, TEP elected to measure service and interest costs utilizing a single weighted-average discount rate derived fromby applying the specific spot rates along that yield curve used to measure the plan obligations. As discussedplans' liability cash flows beginning in Note 8 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, at2016. At the end of 2015, we changed our approach to determine the service and interest cost components of pension and other postretirement benefit expense for future years. For 2016,Previously, we elected to measuremeasured service and interest costs by applyingutilizing a single weighted-average discount rate derived from the specific spot rates along that yield curve used to measure the plan's liability cash flows.plan obligations. We believe the new approach provides a more precise measurement of service and interest costs by aligning the timing of the plans' liability cash flows to the corresponding spot rates on the yield curve. The use of this approach reducesreduced 2016 service and interest cost by $4 million with a corresponding increase to regulatory assets. This change does not affect the measurement of our plan obligations nor the funded status of our plans.
TEP calculates the market-related valueSee Note 8 of pension plan assets using the fair valueNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of the assetsthis Form 10-K.
Expected Returns on the measurement date. TEP assumed that its pension plans’ assets would generate a long-term rate of return of 7% at December 31, 2015. In establishing its assumption as toPlan Assets
To establish the expected return on assets assumption, TEP reviews the asset allocation and develops return assumptions for each asset class based on advice from an investment consultant and the pension’s actuary that includes both historical performance analysis and forward-looking views of the financial markets. Pension expense decreases as the expectedAs of December 31, 2016, TEP assumed that its pension plans’ assets would generate a long-term rate of return on assets increases. A 25-basis point change inof 7%.
Compensation Increases
As of December 31, 2016, TEP reduced the expected return on assets would impactrate of compensation increase to 2.75% to measure pension expense in 2015 by $1 million.obligationsfrom 3% used as of December 31, 2015.
TEP adopted theMortality
The RP-2014 mortality table projected with improvement scale MP-2015MP-2016 with 15 year convergence and 0.75% long term rate was utilized to measure the December 31, 20152016 pension obligations, whereas RP-2000 mortality table with Scale BBimprovement scale MP-2015 was utilized for the December 31, 20142015 measurement.
Health Care Cost Trend Rates
TEP used a current year health care cost trend rate of 7.6% in valuing its retireeother postretirement benefit obligation atas of December 31, 2015.2016. This rate reflects both market conditions and historical experience. Assumed health care cost trend rates have a significant
Sensitivity Analysis
The table below shows the effect on the amounts reported for health care plans. A one-percentageTEP's 2016 expense and obligation of a 100 basis point change in assumed health care cost trend rates would increase the retiree benefit obligation by approximately $6 million and decrease the retiree benefit obligation by approximately $5 million. to its assumptions:
 Effect on Expense Effect on Obligation
 Increase Decrease Increase Decrease
(in millions)December 31, 2016
Change to Pension       
Discount Rate$(5) $6
 $(56) $70
Long-Term Rate of Return on Plan Assets(3) 3
 N/A
 N/A
Change to Other Postretirement Benefits       
Discount Rate
 1
 (7) 9
Long-Term Rate of Return on Plan Assets
 
 N/A
 N/A
Health Care Cost Trend Rate1
 (1) 7
 (6)


In addition, a one-percentage point change in assumed health care cost trend rates would change the related 2016 plan expense by approximately $1 million.
In 2016,2017, TEP will incur pension costs of approximately $11 million and other retireepostretirement benefit costs of approximately $5 million. TEP expects to charge approximately $13 million of these costs to O&Moperations and maintenance expense and $3 million to capital. TEP expects to make pension plan contributions of $10$11 million in 2016.2017. In 2009, TEP established a VEBA trust to fund its other retiree benefit plan. In 2016,2017, TEP expects to make benefit payments to retirees under the retiree benefit plan of approximately $5$4 million and contributions to the VEBAVoluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) trust of approximately $1 million, net of distributions.
SeeNote 8 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for further details regarding TEP's pension plan and other postretirement benefit plan expenses and obligations.
Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities
Commodity Derivative Contracts
TEP enters into forward contracts to purchase or sell capacity or energy at contract prices over a given period of time, typically for one month, three months, or one year, within established limits to meet forecasted load requirements or to take advantage of favorable market opportunities. In general, TEP enters into forward purchase contracts when market conditions provide the opportunity to purchase energy for its load at prices that are below the marginal cost of its supply resources or to supplement its own resources (e.g., during plant outages and summer peaking periods). TEP enters into forward sales contracts when it forecasts that it will have excess supply and the market price of energy exceeds its marginal cost. TEP enters into forward gas commodity price swap agreements to lock in fixed prices on a portion of forecasted gas purchases and to hedge the price risk associated with forward PPAs that are indexed to natural gas prices.
For all commodity derivative instruments that do not meet the normal purchase or normal sale scope exception, we recognize derivative instruments as either assets or liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheetsbalance sheets and measure those instruments at fair value. Unrealized gains and losses on commodity derivative contracts entered into for retail customer load are recorded as either a regulatory asset or regulatory liability on the balance sheet based on our ability to recover the costs of hedging activities entered into to mitigate energy price risk for retail customers. There are no current or expected proposals or changes in the regulatory environment that impact the probability of future recovery of these assets through the PPFAC mechanism.
The market prices used to determine fair values for TEP’s derivative instruments atas of December 31, 2015,2016, are estimated based on various factors including broker quotes, exchange prices, over the counter prices, and time value.

36



TEP manages the risk of counterparty default by performing financial credit reviews, setting limits, monitoring exposures, requiring collateral when needed, and using a standardized agreement, which allows for the netting of current period exposures to and from a single counterparty.
Interest Rate Swaps
TEP hedges the cash flow risk associated with unfavorable changes in the variable interest rates tied to LIBOR on the Springerville Common Facilities Lease.lease. As of December 31, 2015,2016, approximately $29$23 million of variable rate lease debt for the Springerville Common Facilities Leaselease had been hedged through an interest rate swap agreement through January 2020.
Revenue Recognition
TEP’s retail revenues, which are recognized in the period that electricity is delivered and consumed by customers, include unbilled revenue based on an estimate of kWh delivered at the end of each period. Unbilled revenues are dependent upon a number of factors that require management’s judgment including estimates of retail sales and customer usage patterns. The unbilled revenue is estimated by comparing the estimated kWh delivered to the kWh billed to our retail customers. The excess of estimated kWh delivered over kWh billed is then allocated to the retail customer classes based on estimated usage by each customer class. We then record revenue for each customer class based on the various Retail Rates for each customer class. Due to the seasonal fluctuations of TEP’s actual load, the unbilled revenue amount increasesrevenues increase during the spring and summer and decreasesdecrease during the fall and winter. A provision for uncollectible accounts, associated with retail revenues, is recorded as a component of O&M expense.Operations and Maintenance Expense.
Plant Asset Depreciable Lives
TEP has significant investments in electric generation assets and electric transmission and distribution assets. We calculate depreciation expense based on our estimate of the useful lives of our plant assets and expected net removal costs. The useful lives of plant assets are further detailed in Note 3 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K. Changes to depreciation estimates resulting from a change of estimated service life or removal costs could have a significant impact on the amount of depreciation expense recorded in the income statement. The ACC approves depreciation rates for all generation and distribution assets. Depreciation rates for such assets cannot be changed without the ACC's


approval. TEP's transmission assets are subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC. See Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information regarding depreciation rates.
Income Taxes
Due to the differences between GAAP and income tax laws, many transactions are treated differently for income tax purposes than they are in the financial statements. We account for this difference by recording deferred income tax assets and liabilities using the effective income tax rate atas of our balance sheet date. IncomeTEP records income tax liabilities are allocated to TEP based on TEP's taxable income and deductions as reported in the FortisUS, Inc. consolidated tax return.return of FortisUS, Inc., a Fortis intermediate holding company (FortisUS).
A valuation allowance is established against deferred tax assets for which management believes it is more likely than not that the deferred asset will not be realized. In making this judgment, management evaluates all available evidence and gives more weight to objective verifiable evidence. AtTEP recorded no valuation allowance as of December 31, 2015, TEP had a $4 million valuation allowance.2016. See Note 12 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information.

RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
For a discussion of new accounting pronouncements affecting TEP, refer to Note 13 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K.


37



ITEM 7A.7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
Market Risks
TEP’s primary market risks include fluctuations in interest rates, returns on marketable securities, commodity prices and volumes, and counterparty credit. Fluctuations in interest rates can affect earnings and cash flows. We enter into interest rate swaps and financing transactions to manage changes in interest rates. Fluctuations in commodity prices and volumes and counterparty credit losses may temporarily affect cash flows, but are not expected to affect earnings due to expected recovery through regulatory mechanisms.
See Forward-Looking Information for additional information.
Risk Management Committee
We haveTEP has a Risk Management Committee responsible for the oversight of commodity price risk and credit risk related to the wholesale energy marketing and power procurement activities of TEP. Ouractivities. The Risk Management Committee, which meets on a quarterly basis and as needed, consists of officers from the finance, accounting, legal, wholesale marketing, and generation operations departments of TEP.departments. To limit TEP’s exposure to commodity price risk, the Risk Management Committee sets trading and hedging policies and limits, which are reviewed frequently to respond to constantly changing market conditions. To limit TEP’s exposure to credit risk, the Risk Management Committee reviews counterparty credit exposure as well as credit policies and limits.
Interest Rate Risk
Long-Term Debt
TEP is exposed to interest rate risk resulting from changes in interest rates on certain of its variable rate debt obligations. TEP had $137 million in tax-exempt variable rate debt outstanding atas of December 31, 2015.2016. The outstanding debt included one series of bonds for which interest rates are reset weekly and one series of bonds for which interest rates are reset monthly. The weighted average weekly rate (including LOC fees and remarketing fees) was 1.33% in 2016 and 1.24% in 2015 and 1.46% in 2014.2015. The average weekly interest rate ranged from 0.93% - 1.76% in 2016 and 0.93% - 1.42% in 2015 and 1.40% - 1.75% in 2014.2015. The monthly rate is based on a percentage of an index equal to one-month LIBOR plus a credit spread. The average monthly rate was 0.81%1.01% in 20152016 and 0.87%0.82% in 2014.2015. The monthly rate ranged from 0.83% - 1.08% in 2016 and 0.79% - 0.87% in 2015 and 0.85% - 0.95% in 2014.2015.
Although short-term interest rates were low and stable in 2015 and 2014, TEP may still beis subject to volatility in its tax-exempt variable rate debt. A 100 basis point increase in average interest rates on this debt, over a twelve month period, would result in a decrease in TEP’s pre-tax net income of approximately $1 million.
TEP can manage its exposure to variable interest rate risk by entering into interest rate swaps and financing transactions to rebalance its mix of variable rate and fixed rate long-term debt. TEP has a fixed-for-floating interest rate swap in place to hedge


floating interest rate risk associated with a portion of its Springerville Common Facilities lease debt. The notional amount of the swap is $29$23 million atas of December 31, 2015.2016. The notional amount of lease debt that was unhedged as of December 31, 20152016 was $13$9 million. TEP did not have any other interest rate swaps atas of December 31, 2015.2016.
Interest Rate Swap
To adjust the value of TEP’s interest rate swap, classified as a cash flow hedge, to fair value in Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), TEP recorded the following net unrealized gains:
(in millions)2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014
Net Unrealized Gains$1
 $2
 $4
$1
 $1
 $2
Revolving Credit Facilities
TEP is subject to interest rate risk resulting from changes in interest rates on borrowings under its credit agreements. The interest paid on borrowings is variable. Revolving credit borrowings may be made on the basis of a spread over LIBOR or an Alternate Base Rate.ABR. As a result, TEP may experience significant volatility in the rates paid on LIBOR borrowings under its revolving credit facilities.
Marketable Securities Risk

38




The majority of TEP’s pension plan assets, as well as assets associated with other employee benefit obligations, are investments in equity and debt securities. These investments are exposed to price fluctuations in equity markets and changes in interest rates. Of the assets held for employee benefit obligations, the pension plan assets comprise the largest portion. The pension plan assets will help fund defined retirement benefits for substantially all of our employees. Declines in the values of these assets could increase required employer contributions, which would adverselynegatively affect cash flows. Declines in values could also increase the reported pension expense, adverselynegatively affecting TEP’s results of operations.
Commodity and Coal Price Risk
TEP is exposed to commodity price risk primarily relating to changes in the market price of electricity, natural gas, and coal. This risk is mitigated through hedging practices and a PPFAC mechanism which fully recovers the actual retail fuel and purchased power costs incurred on a timely basis from TEP’s retail customers. The PPFAC mechanism has a forward component and a true-up component. The forward component of the PPFAC rate is based on forecasted fuel and purchased power costs. The true-up component reconciles actual fuel and purchased power costs with the amounts collected in the prior year and any amounts under/over-collected will be collected from/credited to customers. If the actual price of power is higher than the forecasted PPFAC rate, TEP's operating cash flows are reduced by the price difference until the subsequent 12-month period when the true-up component is adjusted to allow the recovery of this difference.
Purchases and Sales of Energy
To manage its exposure to energy price risk, TEP enters into forward contracts to buy or sell energy at a specified price and future delivery period. Generally, TEP commits to future sales based on expected excess generatinggeneration capability, forward prices and generation costs, using a diversified market approach to provide a balance between long-term, mid-term, and spot energy sales. TEP generally enters into forward purchases during its summer peaking period to ensure it can meet its load and reserve requirements, and account for other contracts and resource contingencies. TEP also enters into limited forward purchases and sales to optimize its resource portfolio and take advantage of geographical differences in price. These positions are managed on both a volumetric and dollar basis and are closely monitored using risk management policies and procedures overseen by the Risk Management Committee. For example, the risk management policies provide that TEP should not take a short physical position in the third quarter and must have owned generation backing up all physical forward sales positions at the time the sale is made. TEP’s risk management policies also place limits on the duration of transactions in both gas and power.
TEP enters into some forward contracts considered to be normal purchases and sales of electric energy and are therefore not accounted for as derivatives. TEP records revenues on its “normal sales” and expenses on its “normal purchases” in the period in which the energy is delivered. TEP also enters into forward contracts that are not considered to be “normal purchases and sales” and therefore are accounted for as derivatives. When TEP has derivative forward contracts, it marks them to market using actively quoted prices obtained from brokers for power traded over-the-counter at Palo Verde and at other southwestern U.S.United States trading hubs. TEP believes that these broker quotations used to calculate the mark-to-market values represent accurate measures of the fair values of TEP’s positions because of the short-term nature of TEP’s positions, as limited by risk management policies, and the liquidity in the short-term market.

38




Long-Term Wholesale Sales
TEP has several long-term wholesale agreements for the sale of energy. Sales under some of these agreements are based on indexed energy prices. Changes in the price of power affect TEP's revenue and income from these agreements.
Natural Gas
TEP is also subject to commodity price risk from changes in the price of natural gas. In addition to energy from its coal-fired generation facilities, TEP typically uses purchased power, purchases, supplemented by generation from its gas-fired units to meet the summer peak demands of its retail customers and to meet local reliability needs. Some of these purchased power contracts are indexed to natural gas prices. Short-term and spot purchased power purchase prices are also closely correlated to natural gas prices. Due to its increasing gas and purchased power usage, TEP hedges a portion of its total natural gas exposure from plant fuel, gas-indexed purchased power, purchases, and spot market purchases with various instruments up to three years in advance. TEP purchases its remaining gas fuel and power needs in the spot and short-term markets.
As required by fair value accounting rules, for the year ended December 31, 2015,2016, TEP considered the impact of non-performance risk in the measurement of fair value of its derivative assets and derivative liabilities net of collateral posted.

39




To adjust the value of its commodity derivatives to fair value, TEP adjusted regulatory assets or regulatory liabilities as follows:
(in millions)2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014
Unrealized Net Gain (Loss) Recorded to Regulatory (Assets) Liabilities$6
 $(18) $
$12
 $6
 $(18)
The table below displays the valuation methodologies and maturities of TEP’s power and gas derivative contracts by source of fair value:
Unrealized Gain (Loss) of TEP’s Hedging ActivitiesUnrealized Gain (Loss) of TEP’s Hedging Activities
Maturity 0 – 6
months
 
Maturity 6 – 12
months
 
Maturity
over 1 yr.
 
Total
Unrealized
Gain (Loss)
Maturity 0 – 6 months Maturity 6 – 12 months Maturity over 1 yr. Total Unrealized Gain (Loss)
(in millions)December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
Prices Actively Quoted$(7) $(1) $(2) $(10)$1
 $2
 $(1) $2
Prices Based on Models and Other Valuation Methods(1) 
 
 (1)
Total$(8) $(1) $(2) $(11)
Sensitivity Analysis of Derivatives
TEP uses sensitivity analysis to measure the impact of favorable and unfavorable changes in market prices on the fair value of its derivative forward contracts. TEP records unrealized gains and losses as either a regulatory asset or regulatory liability. As contracts settle, the unrealized gains and losses are reversed and realized gains or losses are recorded to the PPFAC. For TEP's non-cash flow power hedges, a 10% change in the market price of power would affect unrealized positions reported as a regulatory asset or regulatory liability by approximately $1 million; for gas swaps, and collar contracts, a 10% change in the market price of energy would affect unrealized positions reported as a regulatory asset or liability by approximately $3$4 million.
Coal
TEP is subject to commodityfuel price risk from changes in the price of coal used to fuel its coal-fired generating plants.generation facilities. This risk is mitigated through the use of long term coal supply agreements with limited price volatility.movement.
TEP's coal supply contract for Springerville Units 1 and 2 expires in 2020, at which time a new coal purchase agreement will be negotiated. TEP expects coal reserves from the Lee Ranch - El Segundo mine, which supplies Springerville Units 1 and 2, to be sufficient to supply the estimated requirements for the unitsunits' presently estimated remaining lives. The current coal price is determined by the cost of Powder River Basin coal delivered to Springerville Unit 3was reset in 2016 and will be subject to a floor and ceiling.annual adjustments through 2020.
TEP participates in jointly-owned generatinggeneration facilities at Four Corners, Navajo, and San Juan, where coal supplies are received under contracts administered by the operating agents. The coal contracts at Four Corners and Navajo expire in 2031 and 2019, respectively. The new coal supply contract with WestmorelandWCC for San Juan, effective January 31, 2016, expires in 2022. AtAs of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP had contracts to purchase coal for use at the jointly-owned facilities and expected its estimated average annual cost for the next three years to be $51$67 million and $22$25 million thereafter through 2031. Contemporaneous with the new San Juan coal supply contract in January 2016, additional estimated minimum purchase obligations are $21 million in 2016, $23 million in 2017, $24 million in 2018 and 2019, $23 million in 2020, and $22 million through the end of the contract.
See Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Liquidity and Capital Resources and Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information.

39




Credit Risk
TEP is exposed to credit risk in its energy-related marketing activities related to potential non-performance by counterparties. We manage the risk of counterparty default by performing financial credit reviews, setting limits, monitoring exposures, requiring collateral when needed, and using standard agreements which allow for the netting of current period exposures to and from a single counterparty. We calculate counterparty credit exposure by adding any outstanding receivable (net of amounts payable if a netting agreement exists) to the mark-to-market value of any forward contracts. If exposure exceeds credit limits or contractual collateral thresholds, we may request that a counterparty provide credit enhancement in the form of cash collateral or an LOC.
TEP has entered into short-term and long-term transactions with several financial institution counterparties with terms of one month through three years. As of December 31, 2015,2016, the credit exposure to TEP from financial institution counterparties was less than $1$3 million.

40




As of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP’s total credit exposure related to its wholesale marketing and gas hedging activities was approximately $10$17 million. TEP did not have anyhad approximately $1 million of exposure to non-investment grade counterparties.
AtAs of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP posted no cash collateral and less than $1 million innor LOCs as credit enhancements with its counterparties, and did not hold anyTEP holds approximately $6 million in collateral from its wholesale counterparties.


4140




ITEM 8. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
TEP’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Management assessed the effectiveness of TEP’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015.2016. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the 2013 COSOCommittee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) Internal Control – Integrated Framework.
Based on management’s assessment using those criteria, management has concluded that, as of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP’s internal control over financial reporting was effective.


4241



Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of Tucson Electric Power Company:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Tucson Electric Power Company as of December 31, 20152016, and 2014,2015, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in stockholder’s equity and cash flows for each of the twothree years in the period ended December 31, 2015.2016. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provided a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Tucson Electric Power Company at December 31, 20152016 and 2014,2015, and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the twothree years in the period ended December 31, 2015,2016, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Ernst & Young LLP
Calgary, Canada
February 18, 2016

43


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Stockholder of Tucson Electric Power Company
In our opinion, the consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in stockholder’s equity and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2013 present fairly, in all material respects, the results of operations and cash flows of Tucson Electric Power Company and its subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2013, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit of these statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
February 25, 2014, except for the effects of the revision discussed in Note 1 (not presented herein) to the consolidated financial statements appearing under Item 8 of the Company’s 2014 annual report on Form 10-K, as to which the date is August 14, 2014

16, 2017


44



TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Amounts in thousands)
Year Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014
Operating Revenues          
Electric Retail Sales$1,021,543
 $970,145
 $934,357
Electric Wholesale Sales167,020
 158,323
 132,500
Other Revenues117,981
 141,433
 129,833
Retail$989,580
 $1,021,543
 $970,145
Wholesale117,341
 167,020
 158,323
Other128,074
 117,981
 141,433
Total Operating Revenues1,306,544
 1,269,901
 1,196,690
1,234,995
 1,306,544
 1,269,901
Operating Expenses          
Fuel305,559
 297,537
 325,903
289,862
 305,559
 297,537
Purchased Power124,764
 152,922
 112,452
85,354
 124,764
 152,922
Transmission and Other PPFAC Recoverable Costs24,798
 18,179
 12,233
23,781
 24,798
 18,179
Increase (Decrease) to Reflect PPFAC Recovery Treatment39,787
 (11,194) (12,458)21,064
 39,787
 (11,194)
Total Fuel and Purchased Power494,908
 457,444
 438,130
420,061
 494,908
 457,444
Operations and Maintenance345,356
 378,877
 335,321
353,905
 345,356
 378,877
Depreciation138,093
 126,520
 118,076
146,097
 138,093
 126,520
Amortization19,261
 28,567
 31,294
22,498
 19,261
 28,567
Taxes Other Than Income Taxes49,623
 47,805
 43,498
49,303
 49,623
 47,805
Total Operating Expenses1,047,241
 1,039,213
 966,319
991,864
 1,047,241
 1,039,213
Operating Income259,303
 230,688
 230,371
243,131
 259,303
 230,688
Other Income (Deductions)          
Interest Income93
 208
 120
111
 93
 208
Other Income6,647
 8,598
 5,770
5,636
 6,647
 8,598
Other Expense(2,833) (12,735) (10,715)(3,019) (2,833) (12,735)
Appreciation (Depreciation) in Value of Investments(142) 1,371
 2,833
2,147
 (142) 1,371
Total Other Income (Deductions)3,765
 (2,558) (1,992)4,875
 3,765
 (2,558)
Interest Expense          
Long-Term Debt61,159
 60,577
 56,378
62,015
 61,159
 60,577
Capital Leases3,994
 10,249
 25,140
3,356
 3,994
 10,249
Other Interest Expense1,134
 810
 87
531
 1,134
 810
Interest Capitalized(2,732) (3,755) (2,554)(1,710) (2,732) (3,755)
Total Interest Expense63,555
 67,881
 79,051
64,192
 63,555
 67,881
Income Before Income Taxes199,513
 160,249
 149,328
183,814
 199,513
 160,249
Income Tax Expense71,719
 57,911
 47,986
59,376
 71,719
 57,911
Net Income$127,794
 $102,338
 $101,342
$124,438
 $127,794
 $102,338
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.


4543



TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Amounts in thousands)
Year Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014
Comprehensive Income          
Net Income$127,794
 $102,338
 $101,342
$124,438
 $127,794
 $102,338
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)          
Net Changes in Fair Value of Cash Flow Hedges:          
Net of Income Tax (Expense) Benefit of ($821), ($1,140), and ($1,793)1,261
 1,675
 2,738
Net of Income Tax (Expense) Benefit of $(420), $(821), and $(1,140)652
 1,261
 1,675
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan Adjustments:          
Net of Income Tax (Expense) Benefit of ($63), $1,068, and ($572)101
 (1,725) 916
Net of Income Tax (Expense) Benefit of $399, $(63), and $1,068(643) 101
 (1,725)
Total Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Net of Tax1,362
 (50) 3,654
9
 1,362
 (50)
Total Comprehensive Income$129,156
 $102,288
 $104,996
$124,447
 $129,156
 $102,288
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.


46



TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Amounts in thousands)
Year Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014
Cash Flows from Operating Activities          
Net Income$127,794
 $102,338
 $101,342
$124,438
 $127,794
 $102,338
Adjustments to Reconcile Net Income To Net Cash Flows from Operating Activities:          
Depreciation Expense138,093
 126,520
 118,076
146,097
 138,093
 126,520
Amortization Expense19,261
 28,567
 31,294
22,498
 19,261
 28,567
Amortization of Debt Issuance Costs3,043
 2,626
 2,452
2,853
 3,043
 2,626
Provision for Springerville Unit 1 - Third-Party Owners Unrealized Revenue22,627
 
 
Use of Renewable Energy Credits for Compliance19,731
 17,818
 15,990
17,618
 19,731
 17,818
Deferred Income Taxes72,026
 59,024
 58,100
59,367
 72,026
 59,024
Pension and Retiree Expense18,588
 13,648
 19,878
Pension and Retiree Funding(30,682) (14,388) (27,636)
Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits Expense15,338
 18,588
 13,648
Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits Funding(13,459) (30,682) (14,388)
Allowance for Equity Funds Used During Construction(5,352) (6,677) (4,526)(4,522) (5,352) (6,677)
LFCR and DSM Revenues(14,646) (12,937) (2,575)
Increase (Decrease) to Reflect PPFAC Recovery Treatment39,787
 (11,194) (12,458)
Fortis Acquisition Direct Customer Benefit
 18,870
 

 
 18,870
Change in Current Assets and Current Liabilities:     
FERC Transmission Refund Payable4,878
 
 
Changes in Current Assets and Current Liabilities:     
Accounts Receivable(25,690) (14,261) 824
7,809
 (3,019) (12,886)
Materials, Supplies, and Fuel Inventory(8,758) 666
 16,145
7,627
 (8,758) 666
Accounts Payable(23,149) 10,712
 334
Regulatory Assets(12,147) 18,002
 (12,777)
Accounts Payable and Accrued Charges14,284
 (13,917) (8,763)
Regulatory Liabilities(2,977) 8,388
 3,331
18,012
 10,921
 8,388
Other, Net15,238
 (16,057) 25,620
14,773
 (797) (9,311)
Net Cash Flows—Operating Activities364,934
 313,663
 346,191
425,464
 364,934
 313,663
Cash Flows from Investing Activities          
Capital Expenditures(333,841) (323,524) (252,848)(250,360) (333,841) (323,524)
Purchase of Gila River Unit 3
 (163,938) 
Purchase of Springerville Coal Handling Facilities Lease Assets(120,312) 
 
Purchase of Springerville Unit 1 Lease Assets(45,753) (19,608) 
Proceeds from Sale of Springerville Coal Handling Facilities23,656
 
 
Purchase of Intangibles - Renewable Energy Credits(29,184) (28,334) (23,280)
Return of Investments in Springerville Lease Debt
 
 9,104
Purchase, Springerville Coal Handling Facilities Lease Assets
 (120,312) 
Proceeds from Sale, Springerville Coal Handling Facilities
 23,656
 
Purchase, Springerville Unit 1 Assets(85,000) (45,753) (19,608)
Purchase, Gila River Unit 3
 
 (163,938)
Purchase Intangibles, Renewable Energy Credits(40,949) (29,184) (28,334)
Contributions in Aid of Construction4,517
 15,903
 3,959
3,432
 4,517
 15,903
Other, Net(1,974) 1,863
 3,403
(3,176) (1,974) 1,863
Net Cash Flows—Investing Activities(502,891) (517,638) (259,662)(376,053) (502,891) (517,638)
Cash Flows from Financing Activities          
Proceeds from Borrowings Under Revolving Credit Facilities148,000
 275,000
 78,000
Repayments of Borrowings Under Revolving Credit Facilities(233,000) (190,000) (78,000)
Proceeds from Borrowings Under Term Loan130,000
 
 
Repayments of Borrowings Under Term Loan(130,000) 
 
Proceeds from Issuance of Long-Term Debt299,019
 149,168
 
Repayments of Long-Term Debt(208,600) 
 
Proceeds from Borrowings, Revolving Credit Facilities
 148,000
 275,000
Repayments of Borrowings, Revolving Credit Facilities
 (233,000) (190,000)
Proceeds from Borrowings, Term Loan
 130,000
 
Repayments of Borrowings, Term Loan
 (130,000) 
Proceeds from Issuance, Long-Term Debt
 299,019
 149,168
Repayments, Long-Term Debt
 (208,600) 
Dividends Paid to Parent(50,000) (40,000) (40,000)(50,000) (50,000) (40,000)
Payments of Capital Lease Obligations(13,464) (165,145) (99,621)(14,079) (13,464) (165,145)
Payment of Debt Issue/Retirement Costs(3,942) (1,856) (1,865)
Payment of Debt Issuance/Retirement Costs(183) (3,942) (1,856)
Contribution from Parent180,000
 225,000
 

 180,000
 225,000
Other, Net1,458
 643
 549
(4,871) 1,458
 643
Net Cash Flows—Financing Activities119,471
 252,810
 (140,937)(69,133) 119,471
 252,810
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents(18,486) 48,835
 (54,408)(19,722) (18,486) 48,835
Cash and Cash Equivalents, Beginning of Period74,170
 25,335
 79,743
55,684
 74,170
 25,335
Cash and Cash Equivalents, End of Period$55,684
 $74,170
 $25,335
$35,962
 $55,684
 $74,170
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

47



TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Amounts in thousands, except share data)
December 31,December 31,
2015 20142016 2015
ASSETS      
Utility Plant      
Plant in Service$5,618,435
 $5,175,148
$5,975,139
 $5,618,435
Utility Plant Under Capital Leases131,705
 667,157
167,413
 131,705
Construction Work in Progress102,028
 109,070
129,955
 102,028
Total Utility Plant5,852,168
 5,951,375
6,272,507
 5,852,168
Less Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization(2,194,301) (2,052,216)
Less Accumulated Amortization of Capital Lease Assets(99,638) (473,969)
Accumulated Depreciation and Amortization(2,385,053) (2,194,301)
Accumulated Amortization of Capital Lease Assets(104,648) (99,638)
Total Utility Plant, Net3,558,229
 3,425,190
3,782,806
 3,558,229
      
Investments and Other Property39,569
 37,599
45,020
 39,569
      
Current Assets      
Cash and Cash Equivalents55,684
 74,170
35,962
 55,684
Accounts Receivable, Net136,682
 131,799
124,934
 136,682
Fuel Inventory34,600
 36,368
25,887
 34,600
Materials and Supplies94,003
 86,750
97,126
 94,003
Regulatory Assets51,841
 69,383
56,340
 51,841
Derivative Instruments1,808
 1,633
4,966
 1,808
Assets Held for Sale, Net21,550
 

 21,550
Other25,904
 21,010
13,793
 25,904
Total Current Assets422,072
 421,113
359,008
 422,072
Regulatory and Other Assets      
Regulatory Assets212,312
 223,192
225,453
 212,312
Derivative Instruments430
 300
330
 430
Other16,866
 12,436
37,372
 16,866
Total Regulatory and Other Assets229,608
 235,928
263,155
 229,608
Total Assets$4,249,478
 $4,119,830
$4,449,989
 $4,249,478
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

(Continued)

48


TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Amounts in thousands, except share data)
December 31,December 31,
2015 20142016 2015
CAPITALIZATION AND OTHER LIABILITIES      
Capitalization      
Common Stock Equity:      
Common Stock (No Par Value, 75,000,000 Shares Authorized, 32,139,434 Shares Outstanding at December 31, 2015 and 2014)$1,296,539
 $1,116,539
Common Stock (No Par Value, 75,000,000 Shares Authorized, 32,139,434 Shares Outstanding as of December 31, 2016 and 2015)$1,296,539
 $1,296,539
Capital Stock Expense(6,357) (6,357)(6,357) (6,357)
Accumulated Earnings189,317
 111,523
Retained Earnings273,408
 189,317
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss(4,564) (5,926)(4,555) (4,564)
Total Common Stock Equity1,474,935
 1,215,779
1,559,035
 1,474,935
Preferred Stock (No Par Value, 1,000,000 Shares Authorized, None Outstanding at December 31, 2015 and 2014)
 
Preferred Stock (No Par Value, 1,000,000 Shares Authorized, None Outstanding as of December 31, 2016 and 2015)
 
Capital Lease Obligations55,324
 69,438
39,267
 55,324
Long-Term Debt, Net1,451,720
 1,361,828
1,453,072
 1,451,720
Total Capitalization2,981,979
 2,647,045
3,051,374
 2,981,979
Current Liabilities      
Current Obligations Under Capital Leases14,114
 173,822
51,765
 14,114
Borrowings Under Revolving Credit Facilities
 85,000
Accounts Payable86,274
 113,413
89,797
 86,274
Accrued Taxes Other than Income Taxes37,577
 36,110
37,639
 37,577
Accrued Employee Expenses27,718
 15,679
29,465
 27,718
Accrued Interest14,246
 21,021
14,508
 14,246
Regulatory Liabilities53,077
 38,847
76,069
 53,077
Customer Deposits20,349
 20,339
25,778
 20,349
Derivative Instruments12,174
 18,874
2,641
 12,174
Other7,533
 9,673
17,837
 7,533
Total Current Liabilities273,062
 532,778
345,499
 273,062
Regulatory and Other Liabilities      
Deferred Income Taxes, Net468,024
 389,540
529,148
 468,024
Regulatory Liabilities307,286
 321,186
300,700
 307,286
Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits120,336
 138,319
131,630
 120,336
Derivative Instruments4,067
 6,288
2,629
 4,067
Other94,724
 84,674
89,009
 94,724
Total Regulatory and Other Liabilities994,437
 940,007
1,053,116
 994,437
      
Commitments and Contingencies
 

 
      
Total Capitalization and Other Liabilities$4,249,478
 $4,119,830
$4,449,989
 $4,249,478
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

(Concluded)


49



TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
(Amounts in thousands)
Common
Stock
 
Capital
Stock
Expense
 
Accumulated
Earnings
(Deficit)
 Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Loss
 
Total
Stockholder's
Equity
Common Stock Capital Stock Expense Retained Earnings Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss Total Stockholder's Equity
Balances at December 31, 2012$888,971
 $(6,357) $(12,157) $(9,530) $860,927
Balances as of December 31, 2013$888,971
 $(6,357) $49,185
 $(5,876) $925,923
Net Income    101,342
   101,342
    102,338
   102,338
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Net of Tax      3,654
 3,654
Dividends Declared to Parent

   (40,000)   (40,000)
Balances at December 31, 2013888,971
 (6,357) 49,185
 (5,876) 925,923
Net Income    102,338
   102,338
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Net of Tax      (50) (50)
Other Comprehensive Loss, Net of Tax      (50) (50)
Dividends Declared to Parent    (40,000)   (40,000)

   (40,000)   (40,000)
Contribution from Parent225,000
       225,000
225,000
       225,000
Other2,568
       2,568
2,568
       2,568
Balances at December 31, 20141,116,539
 (6,357) 111,523
 (5,926) 1,215,779
Balances as of December 31, 20141,116,539
 (6,357) 111,523
 (5,926) 1,215,779
Net Income    127,794
   127,794
    127,794
   127,794
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Net of Tax      1,362
 1,362
Other Comprehensive Income, Net of Tax      1,362
 1,362
Dividends Declared to Parent    (50,000)   (50,000)    (50,000)   (50,000)
Contribution from Parent180,000
       180,000
180,000
       180,000
Balances at December 31, 2015$1,296,539
 $(6,357) $189,317
 $(4,564) $1,474,935
Balances as of December 31, 20151,296,539
 (6,357) 189,317
 (4,564) 1,474,935
Net Income    124,438
   124,438
Other Comprehensive Income, Net of Tax      9
 9
Dividends Declared to Parent    (50,000)   (50,000)
Adoption of ASU, Cumulative Effect Adjustment    9,653
   9,653
Balances as of December 31, 2016$1,296,539
 $(6,357) $273,408
 $(4,555) $1,559,035
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.


5048

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS




NOTE 1.NATURE OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT PRESENTATIONSUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP)TEP is a regulated utility that generates, transmits, and distributes electricity to approximately 417,000420,000 retail electric customers in a 1,155 square mile area in southeastern Arizona. TEP also sells electricity to other utilities and power marketing entities, located primarily in the western United States. TEP is a wholly owned subsidiary of UNS Energy, Corporation (UNS Energy), a utility services holding company. UNS Energy is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis Inc. (Fortis).
References in these notes to "we" and "our" are to TEP.
FORTIS ACQUISITION OF UNS ENERGY
UNS Energy, the parent of TEP, was acquired by Fortis for $60.25 per share of UNS Energy common stock in cash, effective August 15, 2014. The Arizona Corporation Commission's (ACC) approval was subject to certain stipulations, including, but not limited to, the following:
TEP will provide credits on retail customers' bills totaling approximately $19 million over five years: $6 million in year one and $3 million annually in years two through five. The monthly bill credits will be applied each year from October through March effective October 1, 2014;
Dividends paid from TEP to UNS Energy cannot exceed 60 percent of TEP's annual net income for the earlier of five years or until such time that TEP's equity capitalization reaches 50 percent of total capital; and
Fortis making an equity investment of at least $220 million to UNS Energy and its regulated subsidiaries, including TEP. Following the UNS Energy acquisition, Fortis exceeded the investment requirement by contributing $287 million to UNS Energy through December 31, 2014. UNS Energy then contributed $225 million to TEP.
As a result of the acquisition being completed, TEP recorded approximately $15 million, through August 2014, as its allocated share of acquisition-related expenses, in addition to the customer bill credits discussed above. Acquisition-related expenses, reported in Operations and Maintenance and Other Expense, include investment banker fees, legal expenses, and accelerated expenses for certain share-based compensation awards. See Note 9 for additional information regarding share-based compensation.Fortis.
BASIS OF PRESENTATION
TEP's consolidated financial statements and disclosures are presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)GAAP in the United States, which includesincluding specific accounting guidance for regulated operations. See Note 2 for additional information regarding regulatory matters. The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of TEP and its subsidiaries. In the consolidation process, accounts of the parent and subsidiaries are combined and intercompany balances and transactions are eliminated. TEP jointly owns several generating stationsgeneration and transmission facilities with both affiliated and non-affiliated entities. TEP's proportionate share of jointly owned facilities is recorded asin Utility Plant on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, and ourits proportionate share of the operating costs associated with these facilities is included onin the consolidated statementsConsolidated Statements of income.Income. See Note 3 for additional information regarding Utility Plant.
TEP did not reflect the impacts of acquisition accounting in its financial statements. All adjustments of assets and liabilities to fair value and the resultant goodwill associated with the acquisition were recorded by FortisUS Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis.
Certain amounts from prior periods have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. Most notably,
Variable Interest Entities
TEP regularly reviews contracts to determine if it has a variable interest in 2014, TEP electedan entity, if that entity is a Variable Interest Entity (VIE), and if it is the primary beneficiary of the VIE. The primary beneficiary is required to change its methodconsolidate the VIE when the variable interest holder has: (i) the power to direct activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of reporting cash flows from the directVIE; and (ii) the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits that could potentially be significant to the indirect methodVIE.
TEP routinely enters into long-term PPAs with various entities. Some of these entities are VIEs due to conformthe long-term fixed price component in the agreements. These PPAs effectively transfer commodity price risk to Fortis' presentation election.TEP, the buyer of the power, creating a variable interest. TEP has determined it is not a primary beneficiary as it lacks the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of the VIEs. TEP reconsiders whether it is a primary beneficiary of the VIEs on a quarterly basis.
As of December 31, 2016, the carrying amount of assets and liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets that relate to its variable interests under long-term PPAs are predominantly related to working capital accounts and generally represent the amounts owed by TEP for the deliveries associated with the current billing cycle. TEP's maximum exposure to loss is limited to the cost of replacing the power if the providers do not meet the production guarantee. However, the exposure to loss is mitigated as the Company would likely recover these costs through retail customer cost recovery mechanisms.
RECENTLY ADOPTED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
In 2015, weEffective January 1, 2016, TEP adopted accounting guidance that:
limitsthat simplifies the circumstances under which a disposal mayaccounting for share-based payment accounting. The guidance requires that excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies be reportedrecorded as a discontinued operation and requires new disclosures. The adoption of this guidance did not have any impact on our disclosures, financial condition, results of operations,income tax benefit or cash flows as we did not have any activities that required application of this accounting guidance.
requires debt issuance costs to be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying value of the associated debt liability, rather than as deferred charges. The adoption of this standard resulted in reclassification of

51


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



debt issuance costs from Other Current Assets and Other Assets to Long-Term Debtexpense on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.statement of income and eliminates the requirement that excess tax benefits be realized before companies can recognize them. On adoption, using the modified retrospective method of transition, TEP will continuerecorded a cumulative effect adjustment of $10 million to account for debt issuance costs related to line-of-credit arrangements as an asset. TEP reclassified $11 million at December 31, 2014 from Other Current Assetsincrease retained earnings and Other Assets to Long-Term Debt to conform to the current year presentation.
simplifies the presentation of deferred taxes by requiring deferred tax assets and liabilities to be classified as noncurrent on the balance sheet. The adoption of this standard resulted in a reclassification ofdecrease deferred income taxes from Deferred Income Taxes - Current Assetsrelated to Deferred Income Taxes - Regulatoryprior period unrecognized excess tax benefits. The impact on the income statement and Other Liabilities.the statement of cash flows were not significant. TEP reclassified $102 million at December 31, 2014 from Deferred Income Taxes - Current Assetselected to Deferred Income Taxes - Regulatory and Other Liabilities to conform to the current year presentation.recognize forfeitures when they occur.
USE OF ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES
Management uses estimates and assumptions when preparing financial statements underaccording to GAAP. These estimates and assumptions affect:
assets and liabilities on ourin the balance sheets at the dates of the financial statements;
our disclosures about contingent assets and liabilities at the dates of the financial statements; and
our revenues and expenses in ourthe income statements during the periods presented.

49


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



Because these estimates involve judgments based upon ourthe Company's evaluation of relevant facts and circumstances, actual results may differ from these estimates.
Asset Retirement Obligations
TEP has identified legal AROs related to the estimates.retirement of certain generation assets. Additionally, TEP incurred AROs related to its PV assets as a result of entering into various ground leases or easement agreements. The Company records a liability for a legal ARO in the period in which it is incurred if it can be reasonably estimated. When a new obligation is recorded, the cost of the liability is capitalized by increasing the carrying amount of the related long-lived asset. The increase in the liability due to the passage of time is recorded by recognizing accretion expense in Operations and Maintenance Expense on the Consolidated Statements of Income and the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful life of the related asset or, when applicable, the term of the lease. TEP primarily defers costs associated with its legal AROs as regulatory assets based on the ACC approval of these costs in TEP's depreciation rates.
Depreciation rates also include a component for estimated future removal costs that have not been identified as legal obligations. TEP recovers estimated future removal costs in the rates charged to retail customers and an obligation is recorded for estimated costs of removal as regulatory liabilities.
Contingencies
Reserves for specific legal proceedings are established when the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in predicting the outcome of these suits and claims, many of which take years to complete. TEP identifies certain other legal matters where the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible or no estimate of possible losses can be made. All contingencies are regularly reviewed to determine whether the likelihood of loss has changed and to assess whether a reasonable estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made.
ACCOUNTING FOR REGULATED OPERATIONS
We applyTEP applies accounting standards that recognize the economic effects of rate regulation. As a result, we capitalizeTEP capitalizes certain costs that would be recorded as expense or in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI)AOCI by unregulated companies. Regulatory assets represent incurred costs that have been deferred because they are probable of future recovery in the rates charged to retail customers or to wholesale customers through transmission tariffs. Regulatory liabilities generally represent expected future costs that have already been collected from customers or amounts that are expected to be returned to customers through future rate reductions.
Estimates of recovering deferred costs and returning deferred credits are based on specific ratemaking decisions or precedent for each item. Regulatory assets and liabilities are amortized consistent with the treatment in the rate setting process. We evaluateTEP evaluates regulatory assets each period and believebelieves recovery is probable. If future recovery of costs ceases to be probable, the assets would be written off as a charge to current period earnings or AOCI. See Note 2 for additional information regarding regulatory matters.
TEP applies regulatory accounting as the following conditions exist:
An independent regulator sets rates;
The regulator sets the rates to recover the specific enterprise’s costs of providing service; and
Rates are set at levels that will recover the entity’s costs and can be charged to and collected from customers.
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
We considerTEP considers all highly liquid investments with a remaining maturity of three months or less at acquisition to be cash equivalents.
RESTRICTED CASH
Cash balances that are restricted regarding withdrawal or usage based on contractual or regulatory considerations are reported in Investments and Other Property on the balance sheets. Restricted cash was $7 million and $4 million atas of December 31, 2016 and 2015, and $2 million at December 31, 2014.respectively.

5250



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS
We recordTEP records an Allowanceallowance for Doubtful Accountsdoubtful accounts to reduce accounts receivable for amounts estimated to be uncollectible. The allowance is determined based on historical bad debt patterns, retail sales, and economic conditions. Accounts receivable are charged-off in the period in which the receivable is deemed uncollectible. The change in the balance of the Allowance for Doubtful Accounts included in ourAccounts Receivable, Net on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets is summarized as follows:
Year Ended December 31, Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014
Beginning of Period$5
 $5
 $5
$27
 $5
 $5
Increases:     
Charged to Operating Revenues23
 
 
Charged to Operating Expenses2
 2
 2
Additions Charged to Cost and Expense4
 2
 2
Write-offs(3) (2) (2)(3) (3) (2)
Provision for Springerville Unit 1, Third-Party Owners(23) 23
 
End of Period$27
 $5
 $5
$5
 $27
 $5
The Allowanceallowance for Doubtful Accounts increaseddoubtful accounts decreased in 20152016 due to the settlement and release of asserted claims between TEP and the Third-Party Owners' claims atOwners related to Springerville Unit 1. See Note 7 for additional information regarding the settlement of the Third-Party Owners' claims.
INVENTORY
We valueTEP values materials, supplies, and fuel inventory at the lower of weighted average cost or market, unless evidence indicates that the weighted average cost (even if in excess of market) will be recovered in retail rates. We capitalize handling and procurement costs (such as labor, overhead costs, and transportation costs) as part of the cost of the inventory.market. Materials and Supplies consist of generation, transmission, and distribution construction and repair materials. The majority of TEP's inventory will be recovered in Retail Rates. Handling and procurement costs (such as labor, overhead costs, and transportation costs) are capitalized as part of the cost of the inventory.
UTILITY PLANT
Utility Plant includes the business property and equipment that supports electric service, consisting primarily of generation, transmission, and distribution facilities. We report utilityUtility plant is reported at original cost. Original cost includes materials and labor, contractor services, construction overhead (when applicable), and an Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC), less contributions in aid of construction.
We record theThe cost of repairs and maintenance, including planned majorgeneration overhauls, are expensed to Operations and Maintenance (O&M) expense inExpense on the income statementConsolidated Statements of Income as costs are incurred.
When TEP retires a unit of regulated property, is retired, we reduce accumulated depreciation is reduced by the original cost plus removal costs less any salvage value. There is no income statement impact.
AFUDC and Capitalized Interest
AFUDC reflects the cost of debt and equity funds used to finance construction and is capitalized as part of the cost of regulated utility plant. AFUDC amounts are capitalized and amortized through depreciation expense as a recoverable cost in Retail Rates. The capitalized interest that relates to debt is recorded as a reduction in Interest Expense inon the income statement.Consolidated Statements of Income. The capitalized cost for equity funds is recorded asin Other Income inon the income statement.Consolidated Statements of Income.
The average AFUDC rates on regulated construction expenditures are included in the table below:
 2015 2014 2013
Average AFUDC Rates6.12% 7.30% 7.38%
 2016 2015 2014
Average AFUDC Rates7.47% 6.12% 7.30%
Depreciation
We compute depreciationDepreciation is recorded for owned utility plant on a group method straight-line basis at depreciation rates based on the economic lives of the assets. See Note 3 for additional information regarding Utility Plant. The ACC approves depreciation rates for all generation and distribution assets. Transmission assets are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).FERC. Depreciation rates are based on average useful lives and include estimates for salvage value and removal costs.

5351



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



Below are the summarized average annual depreciation rates for all utility plant:
 2015 2014 2013
Average Annual Depreciation Rates2.83% 2.99% 3.16%
 2016 2015 2014
Average Annual Depreciation Rates2.85% 2.83% 2.99%
Utility Plant Under Capital Leases
TEP finances the facilities at Springerville used in common with Springerville Unit 1 and Unit 2 (Springerville Common Facilities)Facilities with capital leases. The capital lease expense incurred consists of Amortization Expense and Interest Expense—Capital Leases.Leases on the Consolidated Statements of Income. See Note 3 for additional information regarding Utility Plant and Note 6 for additional information related to the lease terms.
Computer Software Costs
We capitalize costsCosts incurred to purchase and develop internal use computer software are capitalized and amortize those costs are amortized over the estimated economic life of the product. If the software is no longer useful we immediately charge capitalized computer software costsor impaired, the carrying value is reduced and charged to expense.
ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
TEP has identified legal Asset Retirement Obligations (AROs) related to the retirement of certain generation assets. Additionally, TEP incurred AROs related to its photovoltaic assets as a result of entering into various ground leases or easement agreements. We record a liability for a legal ARO in the period in which it is incurred if it can be reasonably estimated. When a new obligation is recorded, we capitalize the cost of the liability by increasing the carrying amount of the related long-lived asset. We record the increase in the liability due to the passage of time by recognizing accretion expense in O&M expense and depreciate the capitalized cost over the useful life of the related asset or, when applicable, the terms of the lease subject to ARO requirements. TEP defers costs associated with the majority of its legal AROs as regulatory assets based on the ACC's approval of these costs in TEP's depreciation rates.
Depreciation rates also include a component for estimated future removal costs that have not been identified as legal obligations. We recover those amounts in the rates charged to retail customers and have recorded an obligation for estimated costs of removal as regulatory liabilities.
EVALUATION OF ASSETS FOR IMPAIRMENT
We evaluate long-livedLong-lived assets and investments are evaluated for impairment whenever events or circumstances indicate the carrying value of the assets may be impaired. If expected future cash flows (without discounting) are less than the carrying value of the asset, an impairment loss is recognized if the impairment is other-than-temporary and the loss is not recoverable through rates.
DEFERRED FINANCING COSTS
We defer the costsCosts to issue debt are deferred and amortize such costsamortized to interest expense on a straight-line basis over the life of the debt, as this approximates the effective interest method. Deferred debt issuance costs are presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying value of the associated debt liability. These costs include underwriters’ commissions, discounts or premiums, and other costs such as legal, accounting, regulatory fees, and printing costs.
TEP accounts for debt issuance costs related to line-of-credit arrangements as an asset.
We defer and amortize theThe gains and losses on reacquired debt associated with regulated operations are deferred and amortized to interest expense over the remaining life of the original debt.
OPERATING REVENUES
We recognize revenuesRevenues related to the sale of energy are recognized when services or commodities are delivered to customers. The billing of electric sales to retail customers is based on the reading of their meters, which occurs on a systematic basis throughout the month. Operating revenues include an estimate for unbilled revenues from service that has been provided but not billed by the end of an accounting period. At the end of the month, amounts of energy delivered since the last meter reading are estimated and the corresponding unbilled revenue is calculated using average customer Retail Rates.
For purchased power and wholesale salesrevenue contracts that are settled financially, TEP nets the salesrevenue contracts with the purchasepurchased power contracts and reflects the net amount as Electricin Wholesale Sales.Revenues on the Consolidated Statements of Income.

54



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



TEP recognizes monthly management fees in Other Revenues as the operator of Springerville Unit 3 on behalf of Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State) and Springerville Unit 4 on behalf of Salt River Project Agriculture Improvement and Power District (SRP).SRP. Additionally, Other Revenues include reimbursements from Tri-State and SRP for various operating expenses at Springerville and for the use of the Springerville Common Facilities and the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities. The offsetting expenses are recorded in the respective line items of the income statements based on the nature of services provided. As the operating agent for Tri-State and SRP, TEP may earn performance incentives based on unit availability which are recognized in Other Revenues in the period earned.
The ACC has authorized mechanisms for Lost Fixed Cost Recovery (LFCR)LFCR mechanism related to kilowatt-hour (kWh)kWh sales lost due to Energy EfficiencyEE Standards (EE Standards) and distributed generation. We recognize revenuesRevenues are recognized in the period that verifiable energy savings occur. Revenue recognition related to the LFCR mechanism creates a regulatory asset until such time as the revenue is collected.
PURCHASED POWER AND FUEL ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE
We recoverTEP recovers actual fuel, purchased power and transmission costs through base fuel rates and a PPFAC to provide electric service to retail customers through base fuel rates and a Purchased Power and Fuel Adjustment Clause (PPFAC); thecustomers. The ACC periodically adjusts the PPFAC rate at which TEP recovers these costs. The difference between costs recovered through rates and actual fuel, purchased power, transmission, and other approved costs to provide

52



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



retail electric service is deferred. Cost over-recoveries are deferred as regulatory liabilities and cost under-recoveries are deferred as regulatory assets. See Note 2 for additional information regarding regulatory matters.
RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS
The ACC’s Renewable Energy Standard (RES)RES requires TEPArizona regulated utilities to increase itstheir use of renewable energy each year until it represents at least 15% of itstheir total annual retail energy requirements in 2025, with distributed generation accounting for 30% of the annual renewable energy requirement. TEPArizona utilities must file an annual RES implementation plan for review and approval by the ACC. The approved costcosts of carrying out this plan isare recovered from retail customers through the RES surcharge. The ACC has also approved recovery of operating costs, depreciation, property taxes, and a return on investments in company-owned solar projects through the RES tariffsurcharge until such costs are reflected in retail customerTEP's non-fuel base rates.
TEP is required to implement cost-effective Demand Side Management (DSM)DSM programs to comply with the ACC’s EE Standards. The EE Standards provide for a DSM surcharge to recover, from retail customers, the costs to implement DSM programs. The EE Standards require increasing annual targeted retail kWh savings equal to 22% by 2020.
Any RES or DSM surcharge collections above or below the costs incurred to implement the plans are deferred and reflected in the financial statements as a regulatory asset or liability. TEP recognizes RES and DSM surcharge revenue in Electric Retail SalesRevenues on the Consolidated Statements of Income in amounts necessary to offset recognized qualifying expenditures.
RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS
The ACC measures compliance with the RES requirements through Renewable Energy Credits (RECs).RECs. A REC represents one kWh generated from renewable resources. When TEP purchases renewable energy, the premium paid above the market cost of conventional power equals the REC cost recoverable through the RES surcharge. As described above, the market cost of conventional power is recoverable through the PPFAC.
When RECs are purchased, TEP records the cost of the RECs (an indefinite-lived intangible asset) as Other Assets,other assets and a corresponding regulatory liability to reflect the obligation to use the RECs for future RES compliance. When RECs are reported to the ACC for compliance with RES requirements, TEP recognizes Purchased Powerpurchased power expense and Other Revenuesother revenues in an equal amount. TEP had $24 million and $8 million of RECs as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. RECs are included in Regulatory and Other Assets—Other on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. See Note 2 for additional information regarding regulatory matters.
INCOME TAXES
Due to the difference between GAAP and income tax laws, many transactions are treated differently for income tax purposes than for financial statement presentation purposes. Temporary differences are accounted for by recording deferred income tax assets and liabilities on ourthe balance sheets.sheet. These assets and liabilities are recorded using enacted income tax rates expected to be in effect when the deferred tax assets and liabilities are realized or settled. We reduceTEP reduces deferred tax assets by a valuation allowance when, in the opinion of management, it is more likely than not that some portion, or the entire deferred income tax asset, will not be realized.
Tax benefits are recognized when it is more likely than not that a tax position will be sustained upon examination by the tax authorities based on the technical merits of the position. The tax benefit recorded is the largest amount that is more than 50%

55



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



likely to be realized upon ultimate settlement with the tax authority, assuming full knowledge of the position and all relevant facts. Interest expense accruals relating to income tax obligations are recorded in Other Interest Expense.Expense on the Consolidated Statements of Income.
Prior to 1990, TEP flowed through to ratepayerscustomers certain accelerated tax benefits related to utility plant as the benefits were recognized on tax returns. Regulatory Assetsassets include income taxes recoverable through future rates, which reflects the future revenues due to TEP from ratepayerscustomers as these tax benefits reverse. See Note 2 for additional information regarding regulatory matters.
We accountTEP accounts for federal energy credits generated prior to 2012 using the grant accounting model. The credit is treated as deferred revenue, which is recognized over the depreciable life of the underlying asset. The deferred tax benefit of the credit is treated as a reduction to income tax expense in the year the credit arises. Federal energy credits generated since 2012 are deferred as Regulatory Liabilities – Noncurrentregulatory liabilities and amortized as a reduction in Income Tax Expenseincome tax expense over the tax life of the underlying asset. Income Tax Expensetax expense attributable to the reduction in tax basis is accounted for in the year the federal energy credit is generated and is deferred as a regulatory assets.asset. All other federal and state income tax credits are treated as a reduction to Income Tax Expenseincome ax expense in the year the credit arises.
IncomeTEP records income tax liabilities are allocated to TEP based on itsTEP's taxable income as reported in the FortisUS Inc. consolidated tax return.return of FortisUS.

53



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



TAXES OTHER THAN INCOME TAXES
We actTEP acts as conduitsa conduit or collection agentsagent for sales taxes, utility taxes, franchise fees, and regulatory assessments. As we billTrade receivables are recorded as the Company bills customers for these taxes and assessments, we record trade receivables. At the same time, we recordassessments. Simultaneously, liabilities payable to governmental agencies onare recorded in the balance sheet for these taxes and assessments. These amounts are not reflected in the income statements.
FAIR VALUE
As defined under GAAP, fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability between market participants in the principal market or in the most advantageous market when no principal market exists. Adjustments to transaction prices or quoted market prices may be required in illiquid or disorderly markets in order to estimate fair value. Different valuation techniques may be appropriate under the circumstances to determine the value that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction. Market participants are assumed to be independent, knowledgeable, able and willing to transact an exchange, and not under duress. Nonperformance or credit risk is considered in determining fair value. Considerable judgment may be required in interpreting market data used to develop the estimates of fair value. Accordingly, estimates of fair value presented herein are not necessarily indicative of the amounts that could be realized in a current or future market exchange. See Note 11 for additional information regarding fair value.
DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS
We useThe Company uses various physical and financial derivative instruments, including forward contracts, financial swaps, and call and put options, to meet forecasted load and reserve requirements, to reduce our exposure to energy commodity price volatility and to hedge our interest rate risk exposure. For all derivative instruments that do not meet the normal purchase or normal sale scope exception, we recognizethose derivative instruments are recognized as either assets or liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and measure those instrumentsare measured at fair value. The accounting for changes in the fair value of a derivative depends on the intended use of the derivative and the resulting designation.
Commodity derivatives used in normal business operations that are settled by physical delivery, among other criteria, are eligible for and may be designated as normal purchases or normal sales. Normal purchases or normal sales contracts are not recorded at fair value and settled amounts are recognized as cost of fuel, energy and capacity on the Consolidated Statements of Income.
For our derivatives designated as hedging contracts, weTEP formally assess,assesses, at inception and thereafter, whether the hedging contract is highly effective in offsetting changes in the hedged item. Also, weTEP formally documentdocuments hedging activity by transaction type and risk management strategy.
For our derivatives not designated as hedging contracts, the settled amount is generally included in regulated rates. Accordingly, the net unrealized gains and losses associated with interim price movements on contracts that are accounted for as derivatives and probable of inclusion in regulated rates are recorded as regulatory assets and liabilities. See Note 11 for additional information regarding derivative instruments.

56



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



PENSION AND OTHER RETIREEPOSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS
We sponsorTEP sponsors noncontributory, defined benefit pension plans for substantially all employees and certain affiliate employees. Benefits are based on years of service and average compensation. WeThe Company also provideprovides limited health care and life insurance benefits for retirees.
We recognizeThe Company recognizes the underfunded status of our defined benefit pension plans as a liability on ourin the balance sheet. The underfunded status is measured as the difference between the fair value of the pension plans’ assets and the projected benefit obligation for the pension plans. We recognizeTEP recognizes a regulatory asset to the extent these future costs are probable of recovery in the rates charged to retail customers and expectcustomers. The Company expects to recover these costs over the estimated service lives of employees.
Additionally, we maintainTEP maintains a Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP)SERP for senior management. Changes in SERP benefit obligations are recognized as a component of AOCI.
Pension and other retireepostretirement benefit expenses are determined by actuarial valuations based on assumptions that we evaluatethe Company evaluates annually. See Note 8 for additional information regarding the employee benefit plans.


54



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



NOTE 2.REGULATORY MATTERS
The ACC and the FERC each regulate portions of TEP's utility accounting practices and rates.rates of TEP. The ACC regulates rates charged to retail customers, the siting of generation and transmission facilities, the issuance of securities, transactions with affiliated parties, and other utility matters. The ACC also enacts other regulations and policies that can affect business decisions and accounting practices. The FERC regulates terms and prices of transmission services and wholesale electricity sales.
20152017 RATE CASEORDER
In November 2015, TEP filedFebruary 2017, the ACC issued a generalrate order in the rate case with the ACCfiled by TEP in November 2015. TEP's rate filing was based on a test year ended June 30, 2015. The filing requests that2017 Rate Order approved new rates to be implemented by Januaryeffective on or before March 1, 2017.
The key provisions of TEP's general rate case include:the 2017 Rate Order include, but are not limited to:
a Base Ratenon-fuel base rate increase of $110$81.5 million, or 12%, compared with adjusted test year revenues;which includes $15 million of operating costs related to the 50.5% undivided interest in Springerville Unit 1 purchased by TEP in September 2016;
a 7.34%7.04% return on original cost rate base, which includes a cost of $2.1 billion;equity component of 9.75% and a cost of debt component of 4.32%; and
adoption of TEP's proposed depreciation and amortization rates, which include a request to apply excess depreciation reserves againstreduction in the unrecovered net book value (NBV) of thedepreciable life for San Juan Generating Station (San Juan) Unit 1.
The ACC deferred TEP's proposed changes to net metering and rate design for new DG customers to Phase 2, and the H. Wilson Sundt Generating Station (Sundt) Coal Handling Facilities due to early retirement;
a request for authoritywhich is expected to begin usingin the Third-Party Owners' portionsecond quarter of Unit 1 of the Springerville Generating Station (Springerville Unit 1) that is available to TEP for dispatch to serve retail customers' needs and to recover the related operating costs through the PPFAC; and
rate design changes that would reduce the reliance on volumetric sales to recover fixed costs and a new net metering tariff that would ensure that customers who install distributed generation pay an equitable price for their electric service.
2017. TEP cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding or whether its rate request will be adopted by the ACC in whole or in part.proceeding.
COST RECOVERY MECHANISMS
TEP has received regulatory decisions that allow for more timely recovery of certain costs through the recovery mechanisms described below.
Purchased Power and Fuel Adjustment Clause
TEP's PPFAC rate is adjusted annually each April 1st and goes into effect for the subsequent 12-month period unless modified by the ACC. The PPFAC rate includes: (i) a forward component which attempts to recover or refundis calculated by taking the difference between forecasted fuel and purchased power costs and the amount of those embeddedcosts established in the current PPFAC and fuel rates;Retail Rates; and (ii) a true-up component that reconciles the difference between actual costs and those recovered in the preceding 12-month period. The PPFAC bank balance was over-collected by $38 million and $18 million atas of December 31, 2016 and 2015, and under-collected by $19 million at December 31, 2014.

57respectively.



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



In February 2017, the ACC approved in the 2017 Rate Order a PPFAC credit to begin returning the over-collected balance to customers. The table below presents TEP's PPFAC rates duringapproved by the periods reported were as follows:ACC:
Period Cents per kWh
March 2017 through March 2018(0.20)
May 2016 through February 20170.15
April 2015 through MarchApril 2016 0.68
October 2014 through March 2015(1)
 0.50
May 2014 through September 2014(1)
 0.10
July 2013 through April 2014(2)
 (0.14)
January 2013 through June 20130.77
(1)
The ACC approved a two-step increase to shift a higher level of recovery into the winter season.
(2)
The effective date of the 2012 PPFAC rate reduction was deferred to coincide with the effective date of the 2013 Rate Order.
San Juan Mine Fire Insurance Proceeds
In September 2011, a fire at the underground mine providing coal to San Juan caused interruptions to mining operations and resulted in increased fuel costs. The 2013 Rate Order required TEP to defer incremental fuel costs of $10 million from recovery under the PPFAC pending final resolution of an insurance claim by the San Juan Coal Company (SJCC) and distribution of insurance proceeds to San Juan participants. TEP received insurance proceeds of $1 million in 2015 and $8 million in 2014. The insurance proceeds offset the deferred fuel costs and are included in the Statements of Cash Flows as an operating activity. The remaining $1 million of unreimbursed fuel costs will be recovered through the PPFAC, in accordance with the 2013 Rate Order.
Renewable Energy StandardsStandard
The ACC’s RES requires TEP and other affectedArizona regulated utilities to increase their use of renewable energy each year until it represents at least 15% of their total annual retail energy requirements inby 2025, with distributed generationDG accounting for 30% of the annual renewable energy requirement. AffectedArizona utilities must file an annual RES implementation plan for review and approval by the ACC. The approved cost of carrying out the plan is recovered from retail customers through the RES surcharge until such costs are reflected in TEP’s Base Rates. The associated lost revenues attributable to meeting distributed generation targets will be partially recovered through the LFCR.
In July 2015, TEP submitted its application forMay 2016, the ACC approved TEP's 2016 RES implementation plan that includes a budget of $57 million, which will bewas partially offset by applying approximately $9 million of previously recovered carryover funds. TEP proposedhas been approved to recover the remaining $48 million through the RES surcharge. The budget will fundrecovery funds the following: (i) the above market cost of renewable energypower purchases; (ii) previously awarded performance-based incentives for customer installed distributed generation;DG; (iii) depreciation and a return on TEP'scertain TEP investments in company-owned solar projects; and (iv) various other program costs. TEP expects to receive a decision on the application in the first half of 2016. TEP expects to recognize recognized

55


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



approximately $9$3 million of revenue in 2016 as a return on company-owned solar projects. TEP suspended its rooftop solar program effective December 2016, but requested approval of a community solar program. The ACC is expected to consider this program in Phase 2.
In July 2016, TEP metsubmitted its application for the overall 20152017 RES implementation plan with a budget amount of $54 million. TEP expects to recover less than $1 million of revenue in 2017 through the RES surcharge as a return on certain company-owned solar projects. This amount reflects the return and related recovery on projects that are not included in TEP’s Retail Rates. In addition, TEP is no longer requesting recovery on company-owned solar projects through the RES mechanism. TEP expects to receive a decision on its 2017 RES implementation plan in the first half of 2017.
The percentage of retail kWh sales attributable to the 2016 RES renewable energy requirement of 5% of retail Kilowatt-hour (kWh) sales and expects to meetwas approximately 10%, exceeding the overall 2016 requirement of 6% of retail kWh sales.. Compliance is determined through the ACC's review of TEP's annual RES implementation plan. As TEP no longer pays incentives to obtain distributed generation REC,RECs, which are used to demonstrate compliance with the distributed generationDG requirement, the company has requestedACC approved a waiver of the RES distributed generation requirements in its 2016 RES implementation plan.and 2017 residential DG requirement.
Energy Efficiency Standards
In 2010,Under the EE Standards, the ACC approved new EE Standards designed to requirerequires electric utilities to implement cost-effective programs to reduce customers' energy consumption. The EE Standards require increasing cumulative annual targeted retail kWh savings equal to 22% by 2020. Since the implementationAs of the EE Standards,December 2016, TEP’s cumulative annual energy savings arewere approximately 9.3% of 2015 retail kWh sales.12%. TEP’s compliance with the EE Standards is governed by the ACC’s approval of its annual implementation plan.
TEP is required to implement cost-effective DSM programs to comply with the ACC's EE Standards. The EE Standards provide for a DSM surcharge for regulated utilities to recover from retail customers the costs to implement DSM programs as well as an annual performance incentive. TEP recorded $3 million in 2015, $2 million in 2014, and less than $1 million in 2013 related to performance. Therecords its annual DSM performance incentive is recordedfor the prior calendar year in the first quarter of the yeareach year.TEP recorded $2 million in 2016, $3 million in 2015, and is$2 million in 2014 related to performance, included in Electric Retail SalesRevenues on the Consolidated Statements of Income.
In February 2016, the ACC approved TEP’sTEP's 2016 energy efficiency implementation plan. Under the 2016 plan, TEP has been approved to recoverincluding recovery of approximately $14 million from retail customers and will offer customersfor new and existing DSM

58


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



programs. Energy savings realized through the programs will count toward Arizona’smeeting the EE StandardStandards and the associated lost revenue will be partially recovered through the LFCR.LFCR mechanism. TEP notified the ACC that it would not file a 2017 implementation plan and will continue its 2016 plan through the end of 2017 without change. TEP will file its 2018 implementation plan by June 1, 2017.
Lost Fixed Cost Recovery Mechanism
The LFCR mechanism provides for recovery of certain non-fuel costs that would go unrecovered due to lostreduced retail kWh sales as a result of implementing ACC approvedACC-approved energy efficiency programs and meeting distributed generation targets. TEP records a regulatory asset and recognizes LFCR revenues when the amounts are verifiable regardless of when the lost retail kWh sales occur. For recovery of the LFCR regulatory asset, TEP is required to filemake an annual LFCR adjustment requestfiling with the ACC forrequesting recovery of the LFCR revenues recognized in the prior year. The recovery is subject to a year-over-year cap of 1% of TEP's totalapplicable retail revenues.
TEP recorded a regulatory asset and recognized LFCR revenues of $18 million in 2016, $12 million in 2015, and $11 million in 2014, and $2 million in 2013 related to reductions in retail kWh sales for the prior years.2014. LFCR revenues are included in Electric Retail SalesRevenues on the Consolidated Statements of Income.
Appellate Review of Rate Decisions
In a 2015 appellate challenge to two ACC rate decisions regarding a water company, the Arizona Court of Appeals for the State of Arizona considered the questionissue of how the ACC should determine a utility’s “fair value”,value,” as specified in the Arizona Constitution, in connection with authorizing recovery of costs through rate adjustors outside of a rate case. The Court reversed the ACC’s method of finding fair value in that case and raised questions concerning the relationship between the need for fair value findings and the recovery of capital and certain other utility costs through adjustors. In February 2016, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the ACC’s request for review of this decision. IfIn August 2016, the Supreme Court upholds the decision without modification, certain TEP rate adjustors may be negatively affected which could have a significant impact on TEP’s ability to recover certain costs between rate cases. TEP filed a brief in support of the ACC’s petition to the Supreme Court for review ofvacated the Court of Appeals’Appeals decision but cannot predictand confirmed the outcome of this matter.ACC’s decision regarding the rate adjustor at issue. 
FERC COMPLIANCE
In 2016, the FERC issued orders relating to certain late-filed TSAs, which resulted in TEP recording $22 million in time value refunds in 2016. See Note 7 for additional information related to FERC compliance associated with these transmission contracts.

5956


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



REGULATORY ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
Regulatory assets are either being collected in Retail Rates or are expected to be collected through Retail Rates in a future period.Rates. With the exception of interest earned on under-recovered PPFAC coststhe leasehold improvements at Springerville Unit 1 and the ECA, we docoal handling facilities at Sundt, TEP does not earn a return on regulatory assets. Regulatory liabilities represent items that weTEP either expectexpects to pay to customers through billing reductions in future periods or planplans to use for the purpose for which they were collected from customers. RegulatoryWith the exception of over-recovered PPFAC costs, TEP does not pay a return on regulatory liabilities. The regulatory assets and liabilities recorded onin the Consolidated Balance Sheets are summarized in the table below:
 December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014
Regulatory Assets   
Pension and Other Retiree Benefits (Note 8)$120
 $126
Final Mine Reclamation and Retiree Health Care Costs (1)
28
 29
Income Taxes Recoverable through Future Rates (2)
26
 31
Property Tax Deferrals (3)
21
 21
Springerville Unit 1 Leasehold Improvements - Third Party Owners (4)
21
 
LFCR and DSM16
 12
Derivatives (Note 11)12
 18
PPFAC
 19
Springerville Purchase Deferrals (5)

 16
Other Regulatory Assets20
 20
Total Regulatory Assets264
 292
Less Current Portion52
 69
Total Non-Current Regulatory Assets$212
 $223
 Remaining Recovery Period (years) December 31,
(dollars in millions) 2016 2015
Regulatory Assets     
Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits (Note 8)Various $128
 $120
Income Taxes Recoverable through Future Rates (1)
Various 29
 26
Final Mine Reclamation and Retiree Health Care Costs (2)
21 27
 28
Property Tax Deferrals (3)
1 23
 21
Lost Fixed Cost Recovery1 23
 16
Springerville Unit 1 Leasehold Improvements (4)
7 17
 21
Sundt Coal Handling Facilities (5)
Plant Life 16
 
Derivatives (Note 11)3 2
 12
Other Regulatory AssetsVarious 16
 20
Total Regulatory Assets  281
 264
Less Current Portion1 56
 52
Total Non-Current Regulatory Assets  $225
 $212
Regulatory Liabilities       
Net Cost of Removal for Interim Retirements (6)
$264
 $265
Various $270
 $264
Purchased Power and Fuel Adjustment Clause1 38
 18
Renewable Energy StandardVarious 32
 25
Deferred Investment Tax Credits (7)
32
 41
Various 23
 32
RES25
 28
PPFAC18
 
Other Regulatory Liabilities21
 26
Various 14
 21
Total Regulatory Liabilities360
 360
 377
 360
Less Current Portion53
 39
1 76
 53
Total Non-Current Regulatory Liabilities$307
 $321
 $301
 $307
(1)
Final Mine Reclamation and Retiree Health Care Costs represent costs associated with TEP’s jointly-owned facilities at San Juan, Four Corners, and Navajo. TEP has the option to recognize its liability associated with final reclamation and retiree health care obligations at present or future value. TEP has elected to recognize these costs at future value and is permitted to fully recover these costs through the PPFAC when paid. TEP expects to make continuous payments through 2037.
(2) 
Income Taxes Recoverable through Future Rates are amortized over the life of the assets. See Note 1 and Note 12 for additional information regarding income taxes.
(2)
Final Mine Reclamation and Retiree Health Care Costs represent costs associated with TEP’s jointly-owned facilities at San Juan, Four Corners, and Navajo. TEP recognizes these costs at future value and is permitted to fully recover these costs through the PPFAC when paid. The majority of the final mine reclamation costs are expected to occur through 2037.
(3) 
Property taxes are recorded as a regulatory asset based on historical ratemaking treatment allowing regulated utilities to recover property taxes on a pay-as-you-go or cash basis. TEP records a liability to reflect the accrual for financial reporting purposes and an offsetting regulatory asset to reflect recovery for regulatory purposes. This asset is fully recovered in rates with a recovery period of approximately six months.
(4) 
Upon expiration of Springerville Unit 1 capital leases in January 2015,Leasehold Improvements represent investments TEP recorded a regulatory asset for unamortized leasehold improvement costs that relate to third-party ownership interests. These leasehold improvements,made, which were previously recorded in Plant in Service on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, represent investments TEP made through the end of the lease term to ensure that the Springerville Unit 1 facilities continued providingto provide safe, reliable service to TEP's customers. In the 2013 Rate Order, TEP received ACC authorization to recover leasehold improvement costs at Springerville Unit 1 leasehold improvement costs over a 10-year amortization period.
(5) 
In June 2014, the EPA issued a final rule that required TEP deferredto either: (i) install, by mid-2017, SNCR and dry sorbent injection if Sundt Unit 4 continued to use coal as a fuel source; or (ii) permanently eliminate coal as a fuel source as a better-than-BART alternative by the increase in lease interest expense relatingend of 2017. In March 2016, TEP notified the EPA of its decision to permanently eliminate coal as a fuel source, and transferred the purchase commitments for Springerville Unit 1 andNBV of the SpringervilleSundt Coal Handling Facilities to a regulatory asset becauseasset. TEP believeswill apply excess depreciation reserves against the full purchase price is recoverableunrecovered NBV as approved in rate base. See Note 6 for additional information regarding the Springerville leases.2017 Rate Order.

6057


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



(6) 
Net Cost of Removal for Interim Retirements represents an estimate of the cost of future asset retirement obligationsAROs net of salvage value. These are amounts collected through revenue for the net cost of removal of interim retirements for transmission, distribution, generation plant, and general and intangible plant which are not yet expended.
(7) 
Accumulated Deferred Investment Tax CreditCredits (ITC) representsrepresent federal energy credits generated after 2011 that are amortized over the tax life of the underlying asset.
IMPACTS OF REGULATORY ACCOUNTING
If we determineTEP determines that weit no longer meetmeets the criteria for continued application of regulatory accounting, weTEP would be required to write off ourits regulatory assets and liabilities related to those operations not meeting the regulatory accounting requirements. Discontinuation of regulatory accounting could have a material impact on ourTEP's financial statements.

NOTE 3.UTILITY PLANT AND JOINTLY-OWNED FACILITIES
UTILITY PLANT
The following table shows Utility Plant in Service on the Consolidated Balance Sheets by major class:
 December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014
Plant in Service   
Electric Generation Plant$2,612
 $2,388
Electric Transmission Plant1,008
 890
Electric Distribution Plant1,456
 1,398
General Plant358
 338
Intangible Plant - Software Costs (1) (2)
172
 149
Intangible Plant - Transmission Rights and Other7
 8
Electric Plant Held for Future Use5
 4
Total Plant in Service$5,618
 $5,175
    
Utility Plant under Capital Leases (3)
$132
 $667
 
Annual Depreciation Rate (4)
 
Average Remaining Life in Years (4)
 December 31,
(dollars in millions)  2016 2015
Plant in Service       
Generation Plant3.31% 22 $2,866
 $2,612
Transmission Plant1.48% 32 1,024
 1,008
Distribution Plant2.08% 35 1,512
 1,456
General Plant5.48% 11 381
 358
Intangible Plant, Software Costs and Other (1)
Various Various 185
 179
Plant Held for Future Use  7
 5
Total Plant in Service (2)
    $5,975
 $5,618
        
Utility Plant under Capital Leases (3)
    $167
 $132
(1) 
Unamortized computer software costs were $45$52 million and $31$45 million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The amortization of computer software costs were $17 million in 2016, $14 million in 2015, and 2014, respectively.$17 million in 2014. Intangible Plant, Software Costs and Other primarily represents computer software. Computer software is being amortized over its expected useful life ranging from three to five years for smaller application software and its average remaining life of three years for large enterprise software.
(2) 
The amortizationIncluded in Plant in Service are plant acquisition adjustments of computer software costs was $14$(139) million inand $(97) million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, $17 million in 2014, and $14 million in 2013.respectively.
(3) 
In 2016, TEP purchased certaincommitted to purchase an undivided ownership interest in the Springerville facilities leased interestsCommon Facilities upon the expiration of the first lease term in 2015 and 2014.December 2017. As a result of this commitment, Utility Plant Under Capital Leases increased by the present value of the purchase commitment. See Note 6 for additional information regarding the Springerville leases.

61


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



Utility Plant under Capital Leases
All utility plant under capital leases is used in generation operations and amortized over the primary lease term. See Note 6 for additional information regarding capital leases. At December 31, 2015, the utility plant under capital leases represents an undivided one-half interest in certain Springerville Common Facilities. The following table shows the amount of lease expense incurred for generation-related capital leases:
 Year Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 2013
Lease Expense     
Interest Expense – Included in:     
Capital Leases$4
 $10
 $25
Operating Expenses – Fuel
 1
 2
Amortization of Capital Lease Assets – Included in:     
Operating Expenses – Fuel2
 6
 5
Operating Expenses – Amortization6
 16
 15
Total Lease Expense$12
 $33
 $47
Utility plant depreciation rates and approximate average remaining service lives based on the most recent depreciation studies available for the major classes of Utility Plant in Service at December 31, 2015, were as follows:
 
Annual Depreciation Rate (1)
 Average Remaining Life in Years
Electric Generation Plant3.31% 22
Electric Transmission Plant1.48% 32
Electric Distribution Plant2.08% 35
General Plant5.48% 11
Intangible Plant (2)
Various Various
(1)(4) 
The depreciation rates represent a composite of the depreciation rates of assets within each major class of utility plant.
(2)
The majority Annual Depreciation Rate and Average Remaining Life in Years are based on the 2012 depreciation study available for the major classes of TEP's investmentPlant in intangible plant represents computer software. Computer software is being amortized over its expected useful life of three to five years for smaller application software and average remaining life of three to eight years for large enterprise software.Service. TEP will implement new depreciation rates effective March 1, 2017, as approved in the 2017 Rate Order.
GILA RIVER ACQUISITION
In December 2014, TEP and UNS Electric, Inc. (UNS Electric) acquired Gila River Unit 3, a gas-fired combined cycle unit with a nominal capacity rating of 550 megawatts (MW) located in Gila Bend, Arizona, from a subsidiary of Entegra Power Group LLC. TEP purchased a 75% undivided interest in Gila River Unit 3 (413 MW) for $164 million, and UNS Electric purchased the remaining 25% undivided interest.
TEP’s purchase of Gila River Unit 3 was intended to replace the reduction of 195 MW of output from Springerville Unit 1 and the 170 MW of capacity expected to be retired at San Juan in 2017.
The transaction was accounted for using the acquisition method of accounting which requires that assets acquired and liabilities assumed be recognized at their fair values as of the acquisition date. The following table summarizes the assets acquired and liabilities assumed as of the acquisition date:
(in millions) 
Utility Plant, Net$163
Materials and Supplies2
ARO Obligation Assumed (1)
(1)
Total Purchase Price$164
(1)
The ARO obligation was recorded at net present value in Regulatory and Other Liabilities - Other on TEP's Consolidated Balance Sheets.

6258


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



Utility Plant Under Capital Leases
All assets included in Utility Plant Under Capital Leases are used in generation operations and amortized over the primary lease term. As of December 31, 2016, Utility Plant Under Capital Leases represent an undivided one-half interest in certain Springerville Common Facilities. See Note 6 for additional information regarding Springerville leases. The following table shows the amount of lease expense incurred for capital leases:
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016 2015 2014
Lease Expense     
Interest Expense Included in:     
Interest Expense, Capital Leases$3
 $4
 $10
Operating Expenses, Fuel
 
 1
Amortization of Capital Lease Assets Included in:     
Operating Expenses, Fuel
 2
 6
Operating Expenses, Amortization5
 6
 16
Total Lease Expense$8
 $12
 $33
SPRINGERVILLE ACQUISITION
In February 2016, TEP entered into an agreement for the settlement and release of asserted claims and the purchase and sale of beneficial interests in Springerville Unit 1 (Agreement). In September 2016, TEP received FERC authorization to complete the transactions contemplated in the Agreement. In accordance with the Agreement, TEP purchased the undivided interest in Springerville Unit 1 for $85 million. The purchase increased TEP's total ownership interest to 100%. See Note 7 for additional information regarding the settlement.
JOINTLY-OWNED FACILITIES
In addition to Gila River Unit 3, atAs of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP was a participant in the following jointly-owned generating stationsgeneration facilities and transmission systems:
(in millions)Ownership Percentage Plant in Service 
Construction Work in
Progress
 Accumulated Depreciation Net Book ValueOwnership Percentage Plant in Service Construction Work in Progress Accumulated Depreciation Net Book Value
San Juan Units 1 and 250.0% $486
 $12
 $251
 $247
50.0% $496
 $3
 $262
 $237
Navajo Units 1, 2, and 37.5% 148
 2
 112
 38
7.5% 149
 4
 114
 39
Four Corners Units 4 and 57.0% 102
 9
 77
 34
7.0% 110
 27
 76
 61
Luna Energy Facility33.3% 54
 
 
 54
33.3% 55
 
 2
 53
Gila River Unit 375.0% 198
 2
 56
 144
75.0% 202
 3
 59
 146
Gila River Common Facilities18.8% 25
 
 7
 18
18.8% 25
 
 8
 17
Springerville Unit 1 (1)
49.5% 319
 8
 174
 153
Springerville Coal Handling Facility (2)
65.9% 164
 1
 65
 100
Springerville Coal Handling Facility (1)
83.0% 201
 
 80
 121
Transmission FacilitiesVarious 383
 1
 172
 212
Various 383
 3
 175
 211
Total $1,879
 $35
 $914
 $1,000
 $1,621
 $40
 $776
 $885
(1) 
As of December 31, 2015, an undivided interest in Springerville Coal Handling Facilities was classified as Assets Held for Sale, Net. In 2016, TEP is obligated to operatereclassified the unit for the Third-Party Owners under existing agreements. The Owner Trustees and Co-Trustees are obligated to compensate TEP for their pro rata share of expenses. See Note 6 for additional information regarding the purchase of leased interest. See Note 7 for additional information regarding Springerville Unit 1.
(2)
TEP owns an additional 17.05% undivided interest in the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities classified asfrom Assets Held for Sale, Net to Utility Plant on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. See Note 6 for additional information regarding the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities lease interests.
As participants in these jointly-owned facilities, we areTEP is responsible for ourits share of operating and capital costs for the above facilities. We accountThe Company accounts for ourits share of operating expenses and utility plant costs related to these facilities using proportionate consolidation.
RETIREMENTS
San Juan
In October 2014, the EPA published a final rule approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP)SIP covering BART requirements for San Juan, which includes the closure of Units 2 and 3 by December 2017. TEP is a participant in San Juan Unit 2. Given the closure of two units and the

59


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



desire of certain participants to exit their ownership in San Juan, PNM and the other participants,including TEP, negotiated restructured ownership agreements which became effective upon the sale of San Juan Coal Company’s (SJCC)SJCC stock in January 2016. As a condition of the New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission’s (NMPRC) approval of the early retirement of San Juan Units 2 and 3, PNM is required to make a filing with the NMPRC in 2018 to demonstrate the ongoing economic viability of San Juan beyond 2022. Under the new restructured ownership agreements, TEP and the other remaining participants have the option to exit their remaining ownership interest in San Juan as of June 30, 2022.
AtAs of December 31, 2015,2016, the net book valueNBV of TEP's share in San Juan Unit 2, including construction work in progress, was $104$98 million. Consistent with the 2013 Rate Order, TEP has requested authorization from the ACC towill apply excess depreciation reserves against the unrecovered net book valueNBV as approved in its 2015the 2017 Rate Case.Order. See Note 2 for additional information regarding the 20152017 Rate Case.Order.
Sundt
In June 2014, the EPA issued a final rule that would requirerequired TEP to either: (i) install, by mid-2017, SNCR and dry sorbent injection if Sundt Unit 4 continuescontinued to use coal as a fuel source; or (ii) permanently eliminate coal as a fuel source as a better-than-BART alternative by the end of 2017. Under the rule,In March 2016, TEP is required to notifynotified the EPA of its decision by March 2017.
At December 31, 2015,to permanently eliminate coal as a fuel source, and transferred the net book valueNBV of the Sundt coal handling facilities at Sundt to a regulatory asset.
As of December 31, 2016, the NBV of the coal handling facilities at Sundt was $16 million. In August 2015, TEP exhausted its existing coal supply at Sundt and has been operating Sundt with natural gas as a primary fuel source. TEP expects to retire the Sundt coal handling facilities earlier than expected, and has requested towill apply excess depreciation reserves against the unrecovered net book valueNBV as approved in its 2015the 2017 Rate Case.Order. See Note 2 for additional information regarding the 20152017 Rate Case.Order.

63


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
The accrual of AROs is primarily related to generation and photovoltaicPV assets and is included in Regulatory and Other LiabilitiesLiabilities—Other on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The following table reconciles the beginning and ending aggregate carrying amounts of ARO accruals onin the Consolidated Balance Sheets:
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)2015 20142016 2015
Beginning of Period$28
 $22
$32
 $28
Liabilities Incurred4
 5

 4
Accretion Expense or Regulatory Deferral1
 1
2
 1
Revisions to the Present Value of Estimated Cash Flows (1)
(1) 
(1) (1)
End of Period$32
 $28
$33
 $32
(1) 
Primarily related to changes in expected cost estimates, in conjunction with changes of asset retirement dates of generatinggeneration facilities.

NOTE 4.ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
The following table presents the components of Accounts Receivable, Net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets:
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)2015 20142016 2015
Customer$79
 $78
$74
 $79
Due from Affiliates (Note 5)7
 5
9
 7
Unbilled39
 37
34
 39
Other(1)39
 17
13
 39
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts (1)
(27) (5)(5) (27)
Accounts Receivable, Net$137
 $132
$125
 $137
(1) 
TheIn 2016, Accounts Receivable—Other and Allowance for Doubtful Accounts increased in 2015decreased due to the settlement and release of asserted claims between TEP and the Third-Party Owners' claims atOwners related to Springerville Unit 1. See Note 7 for additional information regarding the settlement of the Third-Party Owners' claims.

60


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



NOTE 5.RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
TEP engages in various transactions with Fortis, UNS Energy, and its affiliated subsidiaries including Unisource Energy Services, Inc. (UES), UNS Electric, UNS Gas, Inc. (UNS Gas) and Southwest Energy Solutions, Inc. (SES) (collectively, UNS Energy affiliates)Affiliates). These transactions include the sale and purchase of power and transmission services, common cost allocations, and the provision of corporate and other labor related services.

64


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



The following table presents the components of related party balances included in Accounts Receivable, Net and Accounts Payable on the Consolidated Balance Sheets:
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)2015 20142016 2015
Receivables from Related Parties      
UNS Electric$6
 $4
$7
 $6
UNS Gas1
 1
2
 1
Total Due from Related Parties$7
 $5
$9
 $7
      
Payables to Related Parties      
SES$2
 $2
$2
 $2
UNS Electric2
 1

 2
UNS Energy2
 

 2
Total Due to Related Parties$6
 $3
$2
 $6
The following table presents the components of related party transactions included onin the Consolidated Statements of Income:
 Year Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 2013
Wholesale Sales - TEP to UNS Electric (1)
$8
 $4
 $1
Wholesale Sales - UNS Electric to TEP (1)
1
 4
 2
Control Area Services - TEP to UNS Electric (2)
2
 3
 4
Common Costs - TEP to UNS Energy Affiliates (3)
12
 13
 12
Supplemental Workforce - SES to TEP (4)
16
 16
 16
Corporate Services - UNS Energy to TEP (5)
7
 14
 5
Corporate Services - UNS Energy Affiliates to TEP (6)
1
 1
 1
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016 2015 2014
Goods and Services Provided by TEP to Affiliates     
Transmission Revenues, UNS Electric(1) 
$7
 $6
 $1
Wholesale Revenues, UNS Electric(1)

 2
 3
Control Area Services, UNS Electric(2)
2
 2
 3
Common Costs, UNS Energy Affiliates(3)
14
 12
 13
      
Goods and Services Provided by Affiliates to TEP     
Wholesale Revenues, UNS Electric(1)
1
 1
 4
Supplemental Workforce, SES(4)
14
 16
 16
Corporate Services, UNS Energy(5)
7
 7
 14
Corporate Services, UNS Energy Affiliates(6)
4
 1
 1
(1) 
TEP and UNS Electric sell power and transmission services to each otherother. Wholesale power is sold at prevailing market prices.prices while transmission services are sold at FERC approved rates through the applicable Open Access Transmission Tariff.
(2) 
TEP charges UNS Electric for control area services under a FERC-approved Control Area Services Agreement.
(3) 
Common costs (information systems, facilities, etc.) are allocated on a cost-causative basis and recorded as revenue by TEP. The method of allocation is deemed reasonable by management and is reviewed by the ACC as part of the rate case process.
(4) 
SES provides supplemental workforce and meter-reading services to TEP based on related party service agreements. The charges are based on cost of services performed and deemed reasonable by management.
(5) 
Costs for corporate services at UNS Energy include Fortis management fees, legal fees, and audit fees which are allocated to its subsidiaries using the Massachusetts Formula, an industry accepted method of allocating common costs to affiliated entities. TEP's allocation is approximately 81%82% of UNS Energy's allocated costs. In 2015, these costs included approximately $5 millionCorporate Services, UNS Energy includes legal and audit fees. Beginning in Fortis management fees, which began in January 2015, following the August 2014 acquisition. In 2014, these costs includedFortis acquisition, it includes Fortis management fees of approximately $12$6 million in acquisition-related costs (excluding TEP allocated labor related charges).2016 and $5 million in 2015.
(6) 
Costs for corporate services (e.g., finance, accounting, tax, legal, and information technology) and other labor services for UNS Energy Affiliates are directly assigned to the benefiting entity at a fully burdened cost when possible.
CONTRIBUTION FROM PARENT
In June 2015, UNS Energy made an equity contribution to TEP of $180 million. TEP used proceeds from the equity contribution to repay the outstanding balances under TEP's revolving credit facilities. The remaining balance of the proceeds was used to redeem bonds in August 2015 and to provide additional liquidity to TEP. See Note 6for additional information regarding the August 2015 bond redemption. TEP received contributions of $225 million from UNS Energy in 2014 and no contributions in 2013.
DIVIDEND PAID
TEP declared and paid $50 million in dividends to UNS Energy in 2015 and $40 million in 2014 and 2013.

6561


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



The ACC's approval of the acquisition of CONTRIBUTION FROM PARENT
UNS Energy by Fortis,made no equity contributions to TEP in August 2014, contained a condition restricting subsidiary dividend payments2016. TEP received contributions from UNS Energy of $180 million in 2015 and $225 million in 2014. The contributions were used to repay revolving credit loans, redeem bonds, purchase additional generation capacity, and provide additional liquidity to TEP.
DIVIDENDS PAID TO PARENT
TEP declared and paid $50 million in dividends to UNS Energy by TEP to no more than 60 percent of TEP's annual net income for the earlier of five years or until such time that TEP's equity capitalization reaches 50 percent of total capital as accounted for in accordance with GAAP. The ratios used to determine the dividend restrictions will be calculated for each calendar year2016 and reported to the ACC annually beginning on April 1, 2016. As of December 31, 2015 TEP had not reached the 50 percent of total capital and was therefore still restricted by the condition contained$40 million in the ACC's approval order.2014.

NOTE 6.DEBT, CREDIT FACILITIES,FACILITY, AND CAPITAL LEASE OBLIGATIONS
LONG-TERM DEBT
Long-term debt matures more than one year from the date of the financial statements. The following table presents the components of Long-Term Debt, Net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets:
 December 31,
(dollars in millions) December 31,Interest Rate Maturity Date 2016 2015
Debt (1)
 Interest Rate 
Maturity Date (3)
 2015 2014
Notes        
2011 Notes 5.15% 2021 $250
 $250
5.15% 2021 $250
 $250
2012 Notes 3.85% 2023 150
 150
3.85% 2023 150
 150
2014 Notes 5.00% 2044 150
 150
5.00% 2044 150
 150
2015 Notes 3.05% 2025 300
 
3.05% 2025 300
 300
Tax Exempt Local Furnishings Bonds    
1982 Pima A Irvington Project 
Reset Weekly (2)
 2022 
 39
1982 Pima A TEP Projects 
Reset Weekly (2)
 2022 
 40
2008 Pima B 5.75% 2029 
 130
Tax-Exempt Local Furnishings Bonds    
2010 Pima A 5.25% 2040 100
 100
5.25% 2040 100
 100
2012 Pima A 4.50% 2030 16
 16
4.50% 2030 16
 16
2013 Pima A 4.00% 2029 91
 91
4.00% 2029 91
 91
2013 Apache A 
Reset Monthly (2)
 2032 100
 100
Tax Exempt Pollution Control Bonds    
2013 Apache A (1)
1.01% 2032 100
 100
Tax-Exempt Pollution Control Bonds    
2009 Pima A 4.95% 2020 80
 80
4.95% 2020 80
 80
2009 Coconino A 5.13% 2032 15
 15
5.13% 2032 15
 15
2010 Coconino A 
Reset Weekly (2)
 2032 37
 37
2010 Coconino A (2)
1.33% 2032 37
 37
2012 Apache A 4.50% 2030 177
 177
4.50% 2030 177
 177
Total Long-Term Debt 1,466
 1,375
Total Long-Term Debt (3)
 1,466
 1,466
Less Unamortized Discount and Debt Issuance Costs 14
 13
 13
 14
Total Long-Term Debt, Net $1,452
 $1,362
 $1,453
 $1,452
(1) 
The bonds are variable rate debt for which rates are reset monthly. The interest rate is calculated using a weighted average based on a percentage of an index equal to one-month LIBOR plus a credit spread. The bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase in 2018.
(2)
The bonds are variable rate debt for which rates are reset weekly. The interest rate is calculated using a weighted average and includes LOC fees and remarketing fees. The bonds are backed by an LOC issued pursuant to the 2010 Reimbursement Agreement, which expires in December 2019.
(3)
As of December 31, 2015,2016, all of TEP's debt is unsecured, with the exception of the 2010 Coconino A variable rate bonds, which are backed by a LOC.
(2)
For variable rate debt for which rates are reset weekly, the weighted average rate (including LOC fees and remarketing fees) was 1.24% in 2015 and 1.46% in 2014. The average weekly interest rate ranged from 0.93% - 1.42% in 2015 and 1.40% - 1.75% during 2014. For variable rate debt for which rates are reset monthly, the rate is based on a percentage of an index equal to one-month London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus a credit spread. The average monthly rate was 0.81% in 2015 and 0.87% in 2014. The monthly interest rate ranged from 0.79% - 0.87% in 2015 and 0.85% - 0.95% in 2014.
(3)
The 2010 Coconino A variable rate bonds are backed by an LOC issued pursuant to the 2010 Reimbursement Agreement, which expires in December 2019. The 2013 Apache A variable rate bonds are subject to mandatory tender for purchase in 2018.

66


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



DEBT ISSUANCES AND REDEMPTIONS
Fixed Rate Debt
In February 2015, TEP issued and sold $300 million aggregate principal amount of senior unsecured notes. TEP may redeem the notes prior to December 2024, with a make-whole premium plus accrued interest. On or after December 2024, TEP may redeem the notes at par plus accrued interest.

62


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



In January 2015, TEP purchased $130 million aggregate principal amount of unsecured tax exempttax-exempt Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IDRBs) issued in June 2008 by the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) of Pima County, Arizona for the benefit of TEP. The multi-modal bonds mature in September 2029. AtAs of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP had not remarketed the repurchased bonds and as a result the bonds were not recorded in Long-Term Debt, Net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
In March 2014, TEP issued and sold $150 million of unsecured notes. TEP may redeem the notes prior to September 2043, with a make-whole premium plus accrued interest. After September 2043, TEP may redeem the notes at par plus accrued interest.
Variable Rate Debt
In August 2015, TEP redeemed two series of variable rate tax-exempt bonds at par with an aggregate principal amount of $79 million prior to maturity. In September 2015, TEP terminated the associated LOCs issued under a revolving credit facility.
In September 2014, TEP's interest rate swap entered into in August 2009 expired. The interest rate swap had the economic effect of converting $50 million of variable rate bonds to a fixed rate of 2.40% from September 2009 to September 2014.
CREDIT AGREEMENTSFACILITY
In October 2015, TEP entered into ana new unsecured credit agreement (2015 Credit Agreement) replacing the 2010 Credit Agreement.which replaced its previous credit agreements. The 2015 Credit Agreement provides fornew credit facility includes: (i) a borrowing capacity of $250 million in revolving credit commitmentcommitments; (ii) an LOC facility with a sublimit of $50 million; (iii) an original maturity date of October 2020; and LOC(iv) two one-year extensions options of the facility.
In October 2016, TEP extended the final maturity date one year to October 2021 as permitted by the credit facility. Pursuant to the one-year extension option, $218 million of the commitments elected to extend to the new maturity date.
Interest rates and fees under the credit facility are based on a pricing grid tied to TEP’s credit ratings. The LOC sublimitinterest rate currently in effect on borrowings is $50 million. LIBOR plus 1.00% for Eurodollar loans or ABR with no spread for ABR loans.
TEP expects that amounts borrowed under the credit agreement will be used for working capital and other general corporate purposes and that LOCs will be issued from time to time to support energy procurement and hedging transactions. All amounts outstanding under the facility will be due in October 2020, the termination date. The 2015 Credit Agreement allows for two one-year extensionsAs of the facility if certain conditions are satisfied.
Interest rates and fees under the 2015 Credit Agreement are based on a pricing grid tied to TEP’s credit ratings. The interest rate currently in effect on borrowings is LIBOR plus 1.00% for Eurodollar loans or Alternate Base Rate with no spread for Alternate Base Rate loans.
At December 31, 2015,2016, TEP had no borrowings outstanding included in Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of February 17, 2016,15, 2017, there was $250 million available under the 2015 Credit Agreement's revolving credit commitments and LOC facilities.
In 2015, TEP terminated both the 2010 and 2014 Credit Agreements. The amended 2010 Credit AgreementTEP's previous credit agreements provided for a $200total of $270 million in revolving credit commitment andcommitments, LOCs supporting variable-rate, tax-exempt bonds, with an expiration date of November 2016. The 2014 Credit Agreement, entered into in December 2014, provided forand a $130 million term loan commitment, and a $70 million revolving credit commitment, with anoriginal expiration datedates of November 2015. At December 31, 2014, TEP had $85 million in total borrowings outstanding under these agreements which were included in Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.2016 and November 2015, respectively.
2010 REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
In December 2010, a $37 million LOC was issued to support certain variable rate tax-exempt bonds pursuant to the 2010 Reimbursement Agreement. The LOC hadhas an expiration date of December 2014. In February 2014, the LOC was amended to extend the expiration date from 2014 to 2019. Fees are payable on the aggregate outstanding amount of the LOC at a rate of 0.75% per annum based on TEP's current credit ratings.
COVENANT COMPLIANCE
Certain of ourTEP's credit and long-term debt agreements contain restrictive covenants, including restrictions on additional indebtedness, liens to secure indebtedness, mergers, sales of assets, transactions with affiliates, and restricted payments. AtAs of December 31, 2015, we were2016, TEP was in compliance with the terms of ourits credit and long-term debt 2015 Credit Agreement, 2013 Covenants Agreement, and 2010 Reimbursement Agreement.agreements.

67


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



CAPITAL LEASE OBLIGATIONS
The following table details Capital Lease ObligationObligations on TEP'sthe Consolidated Balance Sheets:
 December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014
Springerville Unit 1$
 $43
Springerville Coal Handling Facilities
 117
Springerville Common Facilities69
 83
Total Capital Lease Obligations69
 243
Less Current Obligations Under Capital Leases14
 174
Total Capital Lease Obligations, Net$55
 $69
 December 31,
(in millions)2016 2015
Capital Lease Obligations$91
 $69
Less Current Obligations Under Capital Leases52
 14
Total Capital Lease Obligations, Non-Current$39
 $55
Springerville Unit 1 Capital Lease Purchases
In December 2014, TEP purchased a 10.6% leased interest in Springerville Unit 1 representing 41 MW of capacity for the appraised value of $20 million. In January 2015, upon expiration of the lease term, TEP purchased leased interests comprising 24.8% of Springerville Unit 1, representing 96 MW of capacity, for an aggregate purchase price of $46 million, the appraised value. Upon purchase of the leased interests, TEP reduced Capital Lease Obligations on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the purchase price.
With the completion of the purchases,purchase, TEP ownsowned 49.5% of Springerville Unit 1, or 192 MW of capacity.
In September 2016, TEP is obligatedpurchased the remaining undivided interest in Springerville Unit 1, bringing its total ownership of the assets to operate the unit for the Third-Party Owners under existing agreements. The Owner Trustees and Co-Trustees are obligated to compensate TEP for their pro rata share of expenses.100%. See Note 7 for more information regarding claimsthe settlement agreement relating to Springerville Unit 1.

63


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



Springerville Coal Handling Facilities Lease Purchase
In April 2015, upon expiration of the lease term, TEP purchased an 86.7% undivided ownership interest in the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities at the fixed purchase price of $120 million, bringing its total ownership of the assets to 100%. Upon purchase of the leased interest, TEP reduced Capital Lease Obligations on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the purchase price.
In May 2015, SRP, the owner of Springerville Unit 4, purchased from TEP a 17.05% undivided interest in the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities for approximately $24 million.
Tri-State, the lessee of Springerville Unit 3, is obligated to either: (i) buy a 17.05% undivided interest in the facilities for approximately $24 million; or (ii) continue to make payments to TEP for the use of the facilities. Tri-State hashad until April 2016 to exercise its purchase option. AtIn March 2016, Tri-State notified TEP that it was exercising its option to purchase the undivided interest in the facilities. As of December 31, 2015, the 17.05% undivided interest in the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities was classified as Assets Held for Sale, Net. However, as of December 31, 2016, TEP's management no longer believed the sale would be completed. As a result, in December 2016 Tri-State's 17.05% undivided interest in the Springerville Coal Handling Facilities is classifiedwas reclassified as Utility Plant from Assets Held for Sale, Net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. In 2016, TEP recorded $1 million of catchup depreciation for the period of time the facilities were recorded in Assets Held for Sale, Net.
Springerville Common Facilities Leases
The Springerville Common Facilities Leases haveinclude: (i) one lease with a fixed purchase price of $38 million and an initial term toending December 2017 for one lease2017; and January 2021 for the other(ii) two leases subjectwith a total fixed purchase price of $68 million and initial terms ending January 2021.
In December 2016, TEP notified the owner participant and the lessor that TEP had elected to optional renewalpurchase a 17.8% undivided ownership interest in the Springerville Common Facilities at the fixed purchase price of $38 million upon the expiration of the lease expiring in December 2017. Due to TEP's purchase commitment, in December 2016, TEP recorded an increase of $36 million to both Current Obligations Under Capital Leases and Utility Plant Under Capital Leases, which represents the present value of the total purchase commitment, on its Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Under the remaining two leases, TEP has options to: (i) renew the leases for periods of two or more years through 2025. TEP may alsoyears; or (ii) exercise a fixed-pricethe purchase provision. The fixed prices for the acquisition of the interests in the common facilities are $38 million in 2017 and $68 million in 2021.
options under these contracts. In addition, TEP entered into agreements with Tri-State, the lessee of Springerville Unit 3, and SRP, the owner of Springerville Unit 4, that contain the following conditions if the Common Facilities Leases are not renewed:
(i) TEP will exercise the purchase options under these contracts;
(ii) SRP will be obligated to buy a portion of these14% undivided interest in the facilities; and
(iii) Tri-State will be obligated to either: (i)(a) buy a portion of these14% undivided interest in the facilities; or (ii)(b) continue makingto make payments to TEP for the use of these facilities.
Springerville Common Facilities lease Interest Rate Swap
TEP entered into an interest rate swap agreement in 2006 that hedges a portion of the floating interest rate risk associated with the Springerville Common Facilities lease debt. The swap has the effect of fixing the benchmark LIBOR rate on a portion of the amortizing principal balance. The swap matures in January 2020 with interest on the lease debt payable at a swapped rate of

68


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



5.77% plus an applicable margin per the lease agreement. The lease debt outstanding atas of December 31, 20152016 consisted of a notional amount of $29$23 million on which interest was fixed by the swap and a notional amount of $13$9 million of debt that was not hedged. The applicable margin was 1.88% and 1.75% atas of December 31, 20152016 and 2014, respectively.2015.
TEP recorded the interest rate swap as a cash flow hedge for financial reporting purposes. See Cash Flow Hedges in Note 11 for additional information.

64


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



DEBT MATURITIES
Long-term debt, including revolving credit facilities classified as long-term, and capital lease obligations mature on the following dates:
(in millions)
Long-Term
Debt
Maturities (1)
 
Capital
Lease
Obligations
 

Total (2)
Long-Term Debt(1)
 Capital Lease Obligations 
Total Debt Maturities(2)
2016$
 $15
 $15
2017
 16
 16
$
 $52
 $52
2018100
 11
 111
100
 11
 111
201937
 11
 48
37
 11
 48
202080
 18
 98
80
 18
 98
Total 2016 - 2020217
 71
 288
2021250
 
 250
Total 2017 - 2021467
 92
 559
Thereafter1,249
 
 1,249
999
 
 999
Less: Imputed Interest
 (2) (2)
 (1) (1)
Total$1,466
 $69
 $1,535
$1,466
 $91
 $1,557
(1) 
$37 million of TEP’s variable rate bonds are backed by an LOC issued pursuant to the 2010 Reimbursement Agreement, which expires in December 2019. Although the variable rate bond matures in 2032, the above table reflects a redemption or repurchase of such bond in 2019 as though the LOC terminates without replacement upon expiration of the 2010 Reimbursement Agreement. TEP's 2013 tax-exempt variable rate IDRBs, which have an aggregate principal amount of $100 million and mature in 2032, are subject to mandatory tender for purchase in 2018.
(2) 
Total long-term debt is not reduced by $11excludes $10 million of related unamortized debt issuance costs and $3 million of unamortized original issue discount.

NOTE 7.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS
AtAs of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP had the following firm, non-cancellable, minimum purchase obligations and operating leases:
(in millions)2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Thereafter Total2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Thereafter Total
Fuel, Including Transportation$78
 $76
 $49
 $49
 $41
 $287
 $580
$100
 $76
 $76
 $67
 $43
 $269
 $631
Purchased Power28
 
 
 
 
 
 28
32
 
 
 
 
 
 32
Transmission6
 6
 6
 4
 3
 13
 38
18
 19
 19
 8
 4
 10
 78
Renewable Power Purchase Agreements61
 61
 61
 61
 60
 750
 1,054
64
 64
 64
 63
 63
 730
 1,048
RES Performance-Based Incentives8
 8
 8
 8
 8
 67
 107
8
 8
 8
 8
 8
 59
 99
Operating Leases:                          
Land Easements and Rights-of-Way1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 77
 82
1
 1
 1
 1
 2
 75
 81
Operating Leases Other1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 4
 9
Other1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 4
 9
Total Purchase Commitments$183
 $153
 $126
 $124
 $114
 $1,198
 $1,898
$224
 $169
 $169
 $148
 $121
 $1,147
 $1,978
Costs for Purchased Power, Transmission, and Fuel, Including Transportation, are recoverable from customers through the PPFAC mechanism. A portion of the costs of PPAs are recoverable through the PPFAC, with the balance of costs recoverable through the RES tariff. PBIs costs are recoverable through the RES tariff. See Note 2 for information on ACC approved cost recovery mechanisms.
Fuel, Including Transportation
TEP has long-term contractsagreements for the purchase and delivery of coal with various expiration dates throughbetween 2017 and 2031. Amounts paid under these contracts depend on actual quantities purchased and delivered. Some of these contractsagreements include a price adjustment components that will affect the future cost.

6965


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



clause that will affect the future cost. TEP expects to spend more than the minimum purchase obligations to meet its fuel requirements. TEP's fuel costs are recoverable from customers through the PPFAC.
Contemporaneously with the sale of SJCC's stock in JanuaryIn April 2016, the existing coal sale agreement terminated and a new Coal Supply Agreement (CSA) became effective. The new CSA is between SJCC and PNM and continues through June 30, 2022. TEP is not a party to the new CSA, but has minimum purchase obligationsPeabody filed for reorganization under restructured ownership agreements at San Juan. Estimated future payments, not included in the table above, are $21 million in 2016, $23 million in 2017, $24 million in 2018 and 2019, $23 million in 2020, and $22 million through the endChapter 11 of the contract.Bankruptcy Code. TEP has existing agreements with Peabody to supply coal from the El Segundo and Lee Ranch mines to Springerville and from the Kayenta mine to Navajo. TEP has continued to receive its contracted coal as planned and has sufficient access to coal inventory for the near future. TEP cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact on TEP's coal supply from Peabody.
TEP has firm transportation agreements with capacity sufficient to meet its load requirements. These contractsagreements expire in various years between 20162018 and 2040.
Purchased Power and Transmission
TEP has agreementscontracts with utilities and other energy suppliers for purchased power to meet system load and energy requirements, replace generation from company-owned units under maintenance and during outages, and meet operating reserve obligations. In general, these contracts provide for capacity payments and energy payments based on actual power taken under the contracts and expire in 2016.with various expiration dates through the fourth quarter of 2017. Certain of these contracts are at a fixed price per MW and others are indexed to natural gas prices. The commitment amounts included in the table above are based on projected market prices as of December 31, 2015.2016.
Transmission
TEP has agreements with other utilities to providepurchase transmission services over lines that are part of the Western Interconnection, a regional grid in the United States. These contractsagreements expire in various years between 20182019 and 2028.
TEP's purchased power and transmission costs are recoverable from customers through the PPFAC mechanism.2030.
Renewable Power Purchase Agreements and RES Performance-Based Incentives
TEP enters into long-term renewable power purchase agreementsPPAs which require TEP to purchase 100% of certain renewable energy generation facilities output once commercial operation status is achieved. While TEP is not required to make payments under these contractsthe agreements if power is not delivered, the table above includes estimated future payments based on expected power deliveries. A portion ofare included in the cost of renewable energy is recoverable through the PPFAC, with the balance of costs recoverable through the RES tariff.table above. These contractsagreements expire in various years between 2030 and 2035.2036.
In February 2016, a facility achieved commercial operation status. The related contract expires in 2036. Estimated future payments, not included in the table above, are $3 million in each of 2016 through 2020 and $43 million through the end of the contract.RES Performance-Based Incentives
TEP has entered into REC purchase agreements to purchase the environmental attributes from retail customers with solar installations. Payments for the RECs are termed Performance-Based Incentives (PBIs)PBIs and are paid in contractually agreed-upon intervals (usually quarterly) based on metered renewable energy production. PBIs are recoverable through the RES tariff.
See Note 2for additional information regarding TEP's RES tariff.These agreements expire in various years between 2022 and 2033.
Operating Leases
OurTEP's operating lease expense is primarily for rail cars, office facilities, land easements, and rights-of-way with varying terms, provisions, and expiration dates. TEP's operating lease expense totaled $2 million in 2016 and $3 million in 2015 and 2014 and $2 million in 2013.2014.
CONTINGENCIES
NavajoLegal Matters
TEP is party to a variety of legal actions arising out of the normal course of business. Plaintiffs occasionally seek punitive or exemplary damages. TEP believes such normal and routine litigation will not have a material impact on its consolidated financial results. TEP is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert or may assert claims or seek to impose fines, penalties, and other costs in substantial amounts on TEP and are disclosed below.
Claims Related to Springerville Generating Station Lease ExtensionUnit 1
Navajo Generating Station (Navajo) is locatedIn February 2016, TEP entered into an agreement with the Third-Party Owners for the settlement and release of asserted claims and the purchase and sale of beneficial interests in Springerville Unit 1 (Agreement). The Agreement provided that: (i) TEP would purchase the Third-Party Owners’ 50.5% undivided interest in Springerville Unit 1 for $85 million; and (ii) the Third-Party Owners would pay TEP $12.5 million for operating costs related to Springerville Unit 1 incurred on a site that is leasedbehalf of the Third-Party Owners.
In September 2016, TEP received FERC authorization to complete the transactions contemplated in the Agreement. In accordance with the Agreement, TEP purchased the undivided interest in Springerville Unit 1 for $85 million. The purchase increased TEP's total ownership interest to 100%. As also provided for in the Agreement, TEP received $12.5 million from the Navajo Nation with an initial lease term through 2019. The Navajo Nation signed a lease amendmentThird-Party Owners in 2013 that would extend the lease from 2019 through 2044. The participants in Navajo, including TEP, have not signed the lease amendment because certain participants have expressed an interest in discontinuing their participation in Navajo. Negotiations between the participants are ongoing, andfull satisfaction of all parties will likely agree to the terms. To become effective, this lease amendment must be signed by all of the participants, approved by the Department of the Interior, and is subject to environmental reviews. Once the lease amendment becomes effective, the participants will be responsible for additional leasepreviously unreimbursed operating costs, from the date the Navajo Nation signed the lease amendment. TEP owns 7.5% of Navajo. In 2015,which TEP recorded additional estimated lease expensein Operating Revenues—Other on the Consolidated Statements of approximately $1 millionIncome. Following the purchase, all outstanding disputes, pending litigation, and arbitration proceedings between TEP and the Third-Party Owners were dismissed with the expectation that the lease amendment will become effective. TEP's Consolidated Balance Sheets reflect a total liability relatedprejudice.

7066


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



to the lease amendment of $3 million and $2 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, recorded in Regulatory and Other Liabilities—Other.
Claims Related to Springerville Generating Station Unit 1
In November 2014, the Springerville Unit 1 Third-Party Owners filed a complaint (FERC Action) against TEP at the FERC alleging that TEP had not agreed to wheel power and energy for the Third-Party Owners in the manner specified in the existing Springerville Unit 1 facility support agreement between TEP and the Third-Party Owners and for the cost specified by the Third-Party Owners. The Third-Party Owners requested an order from the FERC requiring such wheeling of the Third-Party Owners’ energy from their Springerville Unit 1 interests beginning in January 2015 to the Palo Verde switchyard and for the price specified by the Third-Party Owners. In February 2015, the FERC issued an order denying the Third-Party Owners complaint. In March 2015, the Third-Party Owners filed a request for rehearing in the FERC Action, which the FERC denied in October 2015. In December 2015, the Third-Party Owners appealed the FERC’s order denying the Third-Party Owners' complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In December 2015, TEP filed an unopposed motion to intervene in the Ninth Circuit appeal.
On December 19, 2014, the Third-Party Owners filed a complaint against TEP in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (New York Action). In response to motions filed by TEP to dismiss various counts and compel arbitration of certain of the matters alleged, and the court’s subsequent ruling on the motions, the Third-Party Owners have amended the complaint three times, dropping certain of the allegations and raising others in the New York Action and in the arbitration proceeding described below. As amended, the New York Action alleges, among other things, that TEP failed to properly operate, maintain, and make capital investments in Springerville Unit 1 during the term of the leases and that TEP has breached the lease transaction documents by refusing to pay certain of the Third-Party Owners’ claimed expenses. The third amended complaint seeks $71 million in liquidated damages and direct and consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial. The Third-Party Owners have also agreed to stay their claim that TEP has not agreed to wheel power and energy as required pending the outcome of the FERC Action. In November 2015, the Third-Party Owners filed a motion for summary judgment on their claim that TEP has failed to pay certain of the Third-Party Owners’ claimed expenses.
In December 2014 and January 2015, Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustees and Lessors under the leases of the Third-Party Owners, sent notices to TEP that alleged that TEP had defaulted under the Third-Party Owners’ leases. The notices demanded that TEP pay liquidated damages totaling approximately $71 million. In letters to the Owner Trustees, TEP denied the allegations in the notices.
In April 2015, TEP filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) seeking an award of the Owner Trustees and Co-Trustees' share of unreimbursed expenses and capital expenditures for Springerville Unit 1. In June 2015, the Third-Party Owners filed a separate demand for arbitration with the AAA alleging, among other things, that TEP has failed to properly operate, maintain and make capital investments in Springerville Unit 1 since the leases have expired. The Third-Party Owners’ arbitration demand seeks declaratory judgments, damages in an amount to be determined by the arbitration panel and the Third-Party Owners’ fees and expenses. TEP and the Third-Party Owners have since agreed to consolidate their arbitration demands into one proceeding. In August 2015, the Third-Party Owners filed an amended arbitration demand adding claims that TEP has converted the Third-Party Owners’ water rights and certain emission reduction payments and that TEP is improperly dispatching the Third-Party Owners’ unscheduled Springerville Unit 1 power and capacity. In October 2015, the arbitration panel granted TEP’s motion for interim relief, ordering the Owner Trustees and Co-Trustees to pay TEP their pro-rata share of unreimbursed expenses and capital expenditures for Springerville Unit 1 during the pendency of the arbitration. The arbitration panel also denied the Third-Party Owners’ motion for interim relief which had requested that TEP be enjoined from dispatching the Third-Party Owners’ unscheduled Springerville Unit 1 power and capacity. TEP has been scheduling, when economical, the Third-Party Owners’ entitlement share of power from Springerville Unit 1, as permitted under the Springerville Unit 1 facility support agreement, since June 14, 2015. The arbitration hearing is scheduled for July 2016.
In November 2015, TEP filed a petition to confirm the interim arbitration order in the Supreme Court of the State of New York naming the Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee as respondents. The petition seeks an order from the court confirming the interim arbitration order under the Federal Arbitration Act. In December 2015, the Owner Trustees filed an answer to the petition and a cross-motion to vacate the interim arbitration order.
As of December 31, 2015, TEP has billed the Third-Party Owners approximately $23 million for their pro-rata share of Springerville Unit 1 expenses and $4 million for their pro-rata share of capital expenditures, none of which had been paid as of February 17, 2016.
TEP cannot predict the outcome of the claims relating to Springerville Unit 1, and, due to the general and non-specific scope and nature of the claims, TEP cannot determine estimates of the range of loss, if any, at this time. TEP intends to vigorously

71


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



defend itself against the claims asserted by the Third-Party Owners and to vigorously pursue the claims it has asserted against the Third-Party Owners.
TEP and the Third-Party Owners have agreed to stay these litigation matters relating to Springerville Unit 1 in furtherance of settlement negotiations. However, there is no assurance that a settlement will be reached or that the litigation will not continue.
Claims Related to San Juan Generating Station
In August 2013, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposed regulations that, among other things, redefine the term “underground mine” to exclude high-wall mining operations and impose a higher surface mine coal royalty on high-wall mining. SJCC utilized high-wall mining techniques at its surface mines prior to beginning underground mining operations in January 2003. If the proposed regulations become effective, SJCC may be subject to additional royalties on coal delivered to San Juan between August 2000 and January 2003 totaling approximately $5 million of which TEP’s proportionate share would approximate $1 million. TEP owns 50% of Units 1 and 2 at San Juan, which represents approximately 20% of the total generation capacity at San Juan, and is responsible for its share of any settlements. TEP cannot predict the final outcome of the BLM’s proposed regulations.WildEarth Guardians
In February 2013, WildEarth Guardians (WEG) filed a Petition for Review in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) challenging federal administrative decisions affecting seven different mines in four states issued at various times from 2007 through 2012. In its petition, WEG challenges several unrelated mining plan modification approvals, which were each separately approved by the OSM. Of the fifteen claims for relief in the WEG Petition, two concern SJCC’s San Juan mine. WEG’s allegations concerning the San Juan mine arise from the OSM administrative actions in 2008. WEG alleges various National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) violations against the OSM, including, but not limited to, the OSM’s alleged failure to provide requisite public notice and participation, alleged failure to analyze certain environmental impacts, and alleged reliance on outdated and insufficient documents. WEG’s petition seeks various forms of relief, including a finding that the federal defendants violated the NEPA by approving the mine plans, voiding, reversing, and remanding the various mining modification approvals, enjoining the federal defendants from re-issuing the mining plan approvals for the mines until compliance with the NEPA has been demonstrated, and enjoining operations at the seven mines. SJCC intervened in this matter. SJCC was granted its motion to sever its claims from the lawsuit and transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, where this matter is now proceeding. The parties have requestedOn July 18, 2016, the courtfederal defendants filed a motion asking that the matter be voluntarily remanded to stay this matter until April 2016, in furtherance of settlement negotiations. If WEG ultimately obtains the relief it has requested, suchOSM so the OSM may prepare a ruling could require significant expenditures to reconfigure operations atnew environmental impact statement (EIS) under the San Juan mine, impactNEPA regarding the production of coal, and impact the economic viabilityimpacts of the San Juan Mine mining plan approval. In August 2016, the court issued an order granting the federal defendants’ motion for remand to conduct further environmental analysis and complete an EIS by August 31, 2019. The order provided that, the OSM’s decision approving the mining plan will remain in effect during this process. The order further provides that if the EIS is not completed by August 31, 2019, then an order vacating the approved mine and San Juan.plan will become immediately effective, absent further court order. TEP cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact.
Claims Related to Four Corners Generating Station
In October 2011, EarthJustice, on behalf ofEndangered Species Act
On April 20, 2016, several environmental organizations,groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New MexicoArizona against Arizona Public Service Company (APS)the OSM and other federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) alleging that the OSM’s reliance on the Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement prepared in connection with a federal environmental review were not in accordance with applicable law. The environmental review was undertaken as part of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) review process necessary to allow for the effectiveness of lease amendments and related rights-of-way renewals for Four Corners. This review process also required separate environmental impact evaluations under the NEPA and culminated in the issuance of a Record of Decision justifying the agency action extending the life of Four Corners and the other Four Corners Generating Station (Four Corners) participants alleging violations ofadjacent Navajo mine. In addition, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions oflawsuit alleges that these federal agencies violated both the Clean Air Act at Four Corners. In January 2012, EarthJustice amended their complaint alleging violations of New Source Performance Standards resulting from equipment replacements at Four Corners. Among other things,ESA and the plaintiffs soughtNEPA in providing the federal approvals necessary to have the court issue an order to ceaseextend operations at Four Corners until any required PSD permits are issued and order the paymentNavajo mine past July 6, 2016. The lawsuit seeks various forms of civil penalties,relief, including a beneficial mitigation project. In April 2012, APS filed motions to dismiss withfinding that the court for all claims assertedfederal defendants violated the ESA and the NEPA by EarthJustice inissuing the amended complaint.
TEP owns 7%Record of Decision, setting aside and remanding the Biological Opinion and Record of Decision, and enjoining the federal defendants from authorizing any elements of the Four Corners Units 4 and 5Navajo mine pending compliance with NEPA. In July 2016, the defendants answered the complaint and is liable for its share of any resulting liabilities. In June 2015, APS, the operator of Four Corners, announcedfiled a settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for outstanding environmental issues relatedmotion to New Source Review provisions under the Clean Air Act. The settlement calls for environmental upgrades including Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) upgrades already planned for under the Regional Haze regulation, environmental mitigation projects, and civil penalties. A consent decree reflecting terms of the settlementintervene in this matter. APS’ motion was entered by the courtgranted in August 2015, effectively closing2016. Briefing on the case. TEP's sharemerits is expected to extend through May 2017. NTEC, the company that owns the Navajo Mine, filed a motion to intervene in September 2016 for the purpose of dismissing the lawsuit based on NTEC’s tribal sovereign immunity. TEP cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact.
Navajo Generating Station Lease Amendment
Navajo is located on a site that is leased from the Navajo Nation with an initial lease term through 2019. The Navajo Nation signed a lease amendment in 2013 that would extend the lease from 2019 through 2044 (2013 Navajo Lease Extension). TEP owns 7.5% of Navajo. Since 2014, TEP had accrued additional capital, excluding the SCR upgrades, isestimated lease expense of approximately $2 million over the three year period it will take to construct the upgrades. TEP’s share of the annual O&M expenses is approximately $1 million. In addition, TEP recorded less than $1 million for its share of the one-time charges for environmental mitigation projects and civil penalties.
In May 2013, the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (NMTRD) issued a notice of assessment for coal severance tax, penalties, and interest totaling $30 million to the coal supplier at Four Corners. TEP's share of the assessment is $1$5 million based on our ownership percentage.TEP's expectation that the lease would be extended. In December 2016, TEP reversed its lease amendment liability recorded in Regulatory and Other Liabilities—Other on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as management no longer believed the 2013 the coal supplierNavajo Lease Extension was probable. The total lease amendment liability recorded in Regulatory and Four Corners’ operating agent filed a claim contesting the validityOther Liabilities—Other as of the assessment on behalf of the participants in Four Corners, who will be liable for their share of any

72


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



resulting liabilities. In JuneDecember 31, 2015, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the Four Corners' participants. NMTRD filed an appeal of the decision in August 2015. TEP cannot predict the final outcome or timing of resolution of these claims.was $3 million.
Mine Closure Reclamation at Generating StationsGeneration Facilities Not Operated by TEP
TEP pays ongoing reclamation mine costs related to coal mines that supply generating stationsgeneration facilities in which TEP has an ownership interest but does not operate. TEP is also liable for a portion of final mine reclamation costs upon closure of the mines servicing Navajo, San Juan, and Four Corners. TEP’s share of reclamation costs at all three mines is expected to be $43$61 million upon

67


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



expiration of the coal supply agreements, which expire between 2019 and 2031. The Consolidated Balance Sheets reflect a total liability related to reclamation liability recorded wasof $26 million and $25 million and $22 million atas of December 31, 20152016 and 2014,2015, respectively.
Amounts recorded for final mine reclamation are subject to various assumptions, such as estimations of reclamation costs, the dates when final reclamation will occur, and the expected inflation rate. As these assumptions change, TEP will prospectively adjust the expense amounts for final reclamation over the remaining coal supply agreements’ terms. TEP does not believe that recognition of its final reclamation obligations will be material to TEP in any single year because recognition will occur over the remaining terms of its coal supply agreements.
TEP’s PPFAC allows us to pass through final mine reclamation costs, as a component of fuel cost,costs, to retail customers. Therefore, TEP classifies these costs as a regulatory asset by increasing the regulatory asset and the reclamation liability over the remaining life of the coal supply agreements and recovers the regulatory asset through the PPFAC as final mine reclamation costs are paid to the coal suppliers.
Discontinued Transmission ProjectGila River Emissions Compliance
In August 2016, Gila River received a Notice of Violation from the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) stating the facility failed to monitor emissions during startup and to properly calibrate carbon monoxide monitors. TEP and UNS Electric own a 75% and 25%, respectively, undivided ownership interest in Gila River Unit 3. Gila River has already performed the necessary corrective actions to address the alleged violations. In December 2016, Gila River signed a settlement agreement with MCAQD resolving all alleged violations. The settlement amount was immaterial to the presentation of TEP's financial statements.
FERC Compliance
In 2015 and 2016, TEP self-reported to the FERC OE that TEP had initiatednot timely filed certain FERC-jurisdictional agreements. TEP conducted comprehensive internal reviews of its compliance with the FERC filing requirements (Compliance Reviews), and made compliance filings with the FERC Office of Energy Market Regulation. This included the filing of several TSAs entered into between 2003 and 2015 that contained certain deviations from TEP’s standard form of service agreement.
In 2016, the FERC issued orders related to the late-filed TSAs, which directed TEP to issue time value refunds to the counterparties to these TSAs. As a projectresult of the FERC Refund Orders and ongoing discussions with the OE, TEP recorded $22 million in time value refunds offsetting Wholesale Revenues on the Consolidated Statements of Income in 2016. Of the total amount recorded, TEP has paid $17 million in 2016 and accrued the remaining $5 million in Current Liabilities—Other on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2016.
In June 2016, to jointly constructpreserve its rights, TEP petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the FERC Refund Orders. In January 2017, TEP and one of the TSA counterparties entered into a 60-mile transmission line from Tucson, Arizona to Nogales, Arizonasettlement agreement regarding the FERC Refund Orders. Under the agreement, the counterparty paid TEP $8 million in response to an orderJanuary 2017 and TEP dismissed the appeal with prejudice.
TEP's Compliance Reviews are still under review by the ACC to UNS Electric to improveOE. The FERC could impose civil penalties on TEP as a result of the reliabilityOE's review of electric service in Nogales.the Compliance Reviews. At this time, TEP and UNS Electric will not proceed withcannot predict the project based on the costoutcome or range of the proposed 345-kilo-volt (kV) line, the difficulty in reaching agreement with the United States Forest Service on a path for the line, and concurrence by the ACC that recent transmission additions by TEP and UNS Electric support elimination of this project. TEP and UNS Electric plan to maintain the Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC) previously granted by the ACC for this project in contemplation of using the route to serve future customers and to address reliability needs. As part of the 2013 TEP Rate Order, TEP agreed to seek recovery of the project costs from the FERC before seeking rate recovery from the ACC. In 2012, TEP wrote off $5 million of the capitalized costs and recorded a regulatory asset of $5 million for the balance deemed probable of recovery in TEP's next FERC rate case.additional losses, if any.
Performance Guarantees
TEP has joint participation agreements with participants at Navajo, San Juan, Four Corners, and the Luna Energy Facility (Luna).with Luna. The participants in each of the generating stations,generation facilities, including TEP, have guaranteed certain performance obligations. Specifically, in the event of payment default, the non-defaulting participants have agreed to bear a proportionate share of expenses otherwise payable by the defaulting participant. In exchange, the non-defaulting participants are entitled to receive their proportionate share of the generatinggeneration capacity of the defaulting participant. With the exception of Four Corners, there is no maximum potential amount of future payments (undiscounted) TEP could be required to make under the guarantees. The maximum potential amount of future payments is $250 million at Four Corners. As of December 31, 2015,2016, there have been no such payment defaults under any of the participation agreements. The Navajo participation agreement expires in 2019, San Juan in 2022, Four Corners in 2041, and Luna in 2046.


68


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



NOTE 8.EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS
PENSION BENEFIT PLANS
TEP has three noncontributory, defined benefit pension plans. Benefits are based on years of service and average compensation. Two of the plans are for substantially allcover the majority of TEP's employees. We fundThe Company funds those plans by contributing at least the minimum amount required under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations. WeTEP also maintainmaintains a Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP)SERP for executive management.
OTHER RETIREEPOSTRETIREMENT BENEFIT PLANSPLAN
TEP provides limited health care and life insurance benefits for retirees. Active TEP employees may become eligible for these benefits if they reach retirement age while working for TEP or an affiliate.

73


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



TEP funds its other retireepostretirement benefits for classified employees through a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA).VEBA. TEP contributed $2 million in 2016, $4 million in 2015, and $3 million in 2014 and 2013 to the VEBA. Other retireepostretirement benefits for unclassified employees are self-funded.
REGULATORY RECOVERY
We recordTEP records changes in our non-SERP pension plans and the other retireepostretirement defined benefit plan, not yet reflected in net periodic benefit cost, as a regulatory asset, as such amounts are probable of future recovery in the rates charged to retail customers. Changes in the SERP obligation, not yet reflected in net periodic benefit cost, are recorded in Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) since SERP expense is not currently recoverable in rates.
The following table summarizes pension and other retireepostretirement benefit related amounts (excluding tax balances) included onin the Consolidated Balance Sheets:
 Pension Benefits Other Retiree Benefits
 December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 2015 2014
Regulatory Pension Asset Included in Regulatory Assets$115
 $117
 $5
 $9
Accrued Benefit Liability Included in Accrued Employee Expenses(1) (1) (2) (2)
Accrued Benefit Liability Included in Pension and Other Retiree Benefits(57) (71) (63) (67)
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss (related to SERP)5
 5
 
 
Net Amount Recognized$62
 $50
 $(60) $(60)
 Pension Benefits Other Postretirement Benefits
 December 31,
(in millions)2016 2015 2016 2015
Regulatory Assets$123
 $115
 $5
 $5
Accrued Employee Expenses(1) (1) (2) (2)
Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits(69) (57) (63) (63)
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss, SERP6
 5
 
 
Net Amount Recognized$59
 $62
 $(60) $(60)

69



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



OBLIGATIONS AND FUNDED STATUS
WeThe Company measured the actuarial present values of all defined benefit pension and other postretirement benefit obligations and other retiree benefit plans atas of December 31, 20152016 and 2014.2015. The table below includessummarizes the status of all of TEP’s pension and other postretirement benefit plans. All plans have projected benefit obligations in excess of the fair value of plan assets for each period presented. The status of our pension benefit and other retiree benefit plans are summarized below:presented:
Pension Benefits Other Retiree BenefitsPension Benefits Other Postretirement Benefits
Year Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 2015 20142016 2015 2016 2015
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation              
Benefit Obligation at Beginning of Year$407
 $330
 $81
 $74
Beginning of Period$394
 $407
 $78
 $81
Actuarial (Gain) Loss(22) 67
 (5) 5
20
 (22) 
 (5)
Interest Cost17
 16
 3
 3
15
 17
 2
 3
Service Cost12
 10
 4
 4
12
 12
 4
 4
Benefits Paid(20) (16) (5) (5)(17) (20) (5) (5)
Projected Benefit Obligation at End of Year394
 407
 78
 81
Change in Plan Assets       
Fair Value of Plan Assets at Beginning of Year335
 307
 12
 10
End of Period424
 394
 79
 78
Change in Fair Value of Plan Assets       
Beginning of Period336
 335
 13
 12
Actual Return on Plan Assets(3) 35
 
 1
27
 (3) 1
 
Benefits Paid(20) (16) (5) (5)(17) (20) (5) (5)
Employer Contributions (1)
24
 9
 6
 6
8
 24
 5
 6
Fair Value of Plan Assets at End of Year336
 335
 13
 12
Funded Status at End of Year$(58) $(72) $(65) $(69)
End of Period354
 336
 14
 13
Funded Status at End of Period$(70) $(58) $(65) $(65)
(1) 
In 2016, TEP expects to contribute $10$11 million to the pension plans.plans in 2017.

74



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



The following table provides the components of TEP’s regulatory assets and accumulated other comprehensive loss that have not been recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost as of the dates presented:
Pension Benefits Other Retiree BenefitsPension Benefits Other Postretirement Benefits
Year Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 2015 20142016 2015 2016 2015
Net Loss$117
 $118
 $6
 $11
$128
 $117
 $6
 $6
Prior Service Cost (Benefit)3
 4
 (1) (2)
 3
 (1) (1)
The accumulated benefit obligation aggregated for all pension plans is $384 million and $355 million and $365 million atas of December 31, 20152016 and 2014,2015, respectively.
All three of our pension plans had accumulated benefit obligations in excess of plan assets atas of December 31, 2014. As a result2016. Two of increases in discount rates and employer contributions, two of ourTEP's plans had accumulated benefit obligations in excess of plan assets atas of December 31, 2015. The following table includes information for pension plans with accumulated benefit obligations in excess of pension plan assets:
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)2015 20142016 2015
Accumulated Benefit Obligation$188
 $365
$384
 $188
Fair Value of Plan Assets169
 335
354
 169

70



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



Net periodic benefit plan cost includes the following components:
Pension Benefits Other Retiree BenefitsPension Benefits Other Postretirement Benefits
Year Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 2013 2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014 2016 2015 2014
Service Cost$12
 $10
 $11
 $4
 $4
 $3
$12
 $12
 $10
 $4
 $4
 $4
Interest Cost17
 16
 14
 3
 3
 3
15
 17
 16
 2
 3
 3
Expected Return on Plan Assets(23) (21) (19) (1) (1) (1)(23) (23) (21) (1) (1) (1)
Actuarial Loss Amortization7
 3
 8
 
 
 
Amortization of Net Loss7
 7
 3
 
 
 
Net Periodic Benefit Cost$13
 $8
 $14
 $6
 $6
 $5
$11
 $13
 $8
 $5
 $6
 $6
Approximately 20%19% of the net periodic benefit cost was capitalized as a cost of construction and the remainder was included in income.
WeBeginning in 2016, the Company elected to measure service and interest costs by applying the specific spot rates along the yield curve to the plans' liability cash flows. Prior to 2016, the Company measured service and interest costs for pension and other postretirement benefits utilizing a single weighted-average discount rate derived from the yield curve used to measure the plan obligations. At the end of 2015, we changed our approach to determine the service and interest cost components of pension and other postretirement benefit expense. We elected to measure service and interest costs by applying the specific spot rates along that yield curve to the plans' liability cash flows beginning in 2016. TEP believes the new approach provides a more precise measurement of service and interest costs by aligning the timing of the plans' liability cash flows to the corresponding spot rates on the yield curve. This change does not affect the measurement of ourits plan obligations nor the funded status. WeTEP accounted for this change as a change in accounting estimate, and accordingly, have accounted for it on a prospective basis.
The changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized as regulatory assets or in AOCI are as follows:
 Pension Benefits
 Regulatory Asset AOCI
(in millions)2015 2014 2013 2015 2014 2013
Current Year Actuarial (Gain) Loss$5
 $49
 $(42) $
 $3
 $(1)
Amortization of Actuarial Gain (Loss)(7) (3) (8) 
 
 
Total Recognized (Gain) Loss$(2) $46
 $(50) $
 $3
 $(1)

75



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



Other Retiree BenefitsPension Benefits Other Postretirement Benefits
Regulatory AssetRegulatory Asset AOCI Regulatory Asset
(in millions)2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014 2016 2015 2014 2016 2015 2014
Current Year Actuarial (Gain) Loss$(4) $5
 $(6)$15
 $5
 $49
 $1
 $
 $3
 $
 $(4) $5
Amortization of Net Loss(7) (7) (3) 
 
 
 
 
 
Total Recognized (Gain) Loss$8
 $(2) $46
 $1
 $
 $3
 $
 $(4) $5
For all pension plans, we amortizeTEP amortizes prior service costs on a straight-line basis over the average remaining service period of employees expected to receive benefits under the plan. We expect to amortize an estimated $7 million net lossEstimated amortization from pension regulatory assets and an estimated $1 million in prior service credit from other retiree benefit plan regulatory assets into net periodic benefit cost in 2016.
The following table2017 includes the weighted average assumptions used to determine benefit obligations:following:
 Pension Benefits Other Retiree Benefits
 2015 2014 2015 2014
Discount Rate4.5-4.6% 4.1-4.2% 4.2% 3.9%
Rate of Compensation Increase3.0% 3.0% N/A N/A
The following table includes the weighted average assumptions used to determine net periodic benefit costs:
 Pension Benefits Other Retiree Benefits
 2015 2014 2013 2015 2014 2013
Discount Rate4.1%-4.2% 5.0%-5.1% 4.1%-4.1% 3.9% 4.7% 3.8%
Rate of Compensation Increase3.0% 3.0% 3.0% N/A N/A N/A
Expected Return on Plan Assets7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%
(in millions)Pension Benefits Other Postretirement Benefits
Net Loss$7
 $
Net periodic benefit cost is subject to various assumptions and determinations, such as the discount rate, the rate of compensation increase, and the expected return on plan assets. Changes that may arise over time with regard to these assumptions and determinations will change amounts recorded in the future as net periodic benefit cost.
We useTEP uses a combination of sources in selecting the expected long-term rate-of-return-on-assets assumption, including an investment return model. The model used provides a “best-estimate” range over 20 years from the 25th percentile to the 75th percentile. The model, used as a guideline for selecting the overall rate-of-return-on-assets assumption, is based on forward lookingforward-looking return expectations only. The above method is used for all asset classes.
Changes that may arise over time with regardThe following table includes the weighted average assumptions used to thesedetermine benefit obligations:
 Pension Benefits Other Postretirement Benefits
 2016 2015 2016 2015
Discount Rate4.2% 4.5% 4.0% 4.2%
Rate of Compensation Increase2.8% 3.0% N/A N/A

71



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



The following table includes the weighted average assumptions and determinations will change amounts recorded in the future asused to determine net periodic benefit cost. costs:
 Pension Benefits Other Postretirement Benefits
 2016 2015 2014 2016 2015 2014
Discount Rate, Service Cost4.8% 4.2% 5.1% 4.6% 3.9% 4.7%
Discount Rate, Interest Cost3.9% 4.2% 5.1% 3.4% 3.9% 4.7%
Rate of Compensation Increase3.0% 3.0% 3.0% N/A N/A N/A
Expected Return on Plan Assets7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%
The following table includes the assumed health care cost trend rates:
December 31,December 31,
2015 20142016 2015
Next Year7.6% 6.7%7.6% 7.6%
Ultimate Rate Assumed4.5% 4.5%4.5% 4.5%
Year Ultimate Rate is Reached2036 20272037 2036
Assumed health care cost trend rates significantly affect the amounts reported for health care plans. A one-percentage-point change in assumed health care cost trend rates would have the following effects on the amounts:
 
One-Percentage-
Point Increase
 
One-Percentage-
Point Decrease
(in millions)December 31, 2016
Increase (Decrease) on Total Service and Interest Cost Components$1
 $(1)
Increase (Decrease) on Other Postretirement Benefit Obligation7
 (6)
PENSION PLAN AND OTHER POSTRETIREMENT BENEFIT ASSETS
TEP calculates the fair value of plan assets on December 31, the measurement date. Asset allocations, by asset category, on the measurement date were as follows:
 Pension Other Postretirement
 2016 2015 2016 2015
Asset Category     
Equity Securities49% 49% 60% 60%
Fixed Income Securities41% 41% 35% 35%
Real Estate8% 8% 2% 2%
Other2% 2% 3% 3%
Total100% 100% 100% 100%
As of December 31, 2016, the fair value of VEBA trust assets was $14 million, of which $5 million were fixed income investments and $9 million were equities. As of December 31, 2015, amounts:
the fair value of VEBA trust assets was $13 million, of which $5 million were fixed income investments and $8 million were equities. The VEBA trust assets are primarily Level 2. There are no Level 3 assets in the VEBA trust.
(in millions)
One-Percentage-
Point Increase
 
One-Percentage-
Point Decrease
Effect on Total Service and Interest Cost Components$1
 $1
Effect on Retiree Benefit Obligation6
 5


7672



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



PENSION PLAN AND OTHER RETIREE BENEFIT ASSETS
Pension Assets
We calculate the fair value of plan assets on December 31, the measurement date. Pension plan asset allocations, by asset category, on the measurement date were as follows:
 2015 2014
Asset Category 
Equity Securities49% 48%
Fixed Income Securities41% 43%
Real Estate8% 7%
Other2% 2%
Total100% 100%
The following table sets forth the fair value measurements of pension plan assets by level within the fair value hierarchy:
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets
(Level 1)
 
Significant Other Observable Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant Unobservable Inputs
(Level 3)
 TotalLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
(in millions)December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
Asset Category              
Cash Equivalents$1
 $
 $
 $1
$1
 $
 $
 $1
Equity Securities:              
United States Large Cap
 81
 
 81

 61
 
 61
United States Small Cap
 17
 
 17

 18
 
 18
Non-United States
 67
 
 67

 67
 
 67
Global
 28
 
 28
Fixed Income
 137
 
 137

 144
 
 144
Real Estate
 8
 18
 26

 9
 19
 28
Private Equity
 
 7
 7

 
 7
 7
Total$1
 $310
 $25
 $336
$1
 $327
 $26
 $354
              
(in millions)December 31, 2014December 31, 2015
Asset Category              
Cash Equivalents$1
 $
 $
 $1
$1
 $
 $
 $1
Equity Securities:      

      

United States Large Cap
 82
 
 82

 81
 
 81
United States Small Cap
 17
 
 17

 17
 
 17
Non-United States
 61
 
 61

 67
 
 67
Fixed Income
 143
 
 143

 137
 
 137
Real Estate
 8
 16
 24

 8
 18
 26
Private Equity
 
 7
 7

 
 7
 7
Total$1
 $311
 $23
 $335
$1
 $310
 $25
 $336
Level 1 cash equivalents are based on observable market prices and are comprised of the fair value of commercial paper, money market funds, and certificates of deposit.
Level 2 investments comprise amounts held in commingled equity funds, United States bond funds, and real estate funds. Valuations are based on active market quoted prices for assets held by each respective fund.
Level 3 real estate investments were valued using a real estate index value. The real estate index value was developed based on appraisals comprising 100% of real estate assets tracked by the index.
Level 3 private equity funds are classified as funds-of-funds. They are valued based on individual fund manager valuation models.

7773



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



The following table sets forth a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of pension assets classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy. There were no transfers in or out of Level 3.
(in millions)Private Equity Real Estate TotalPrivate Equity Real Estate Total
Beginning Balance at January 1, 2014$7
 $14
 $21
Balance as of December 31, 2014$7
 $16
 $23
Actual Return on Plan Assets:    

    

Assets Held at Reporting Date1
 2
 3
1
 2
 3
Purchases, Sales, and Settlements(1) 
 (1)(1) 
 (1)
Ending Balance at December 31, 20147
 16
 23
Balance as of December 31, 20157
 18
 25
Actual Return on Plan Assets:          
Assets Held at Reporting Date1
 2
 3
1
 1
 2
Purchases, Sales, and Settlements(1) 
 (1)(1) 
 (1)
Ending Balance at December 31, 2015$7
 $18
 $25
Balance as of December 31, 2016$7
 $19
 $26
Pension Plan Investments
Investment Goals
Asset allocation is the principal method for achieving each pension plan’s investment objectives while maintaining appropriate levels of risk. We considerTEP considers the projected impact on benefit security of any proposed changes to the current asset allocation policy. The expected long-term returns and implications for pension plan sponsor funding are reviewed in selecting policies to ensure that current asset pools are projected to be adequate to meet the expected liabilities of the pension plans. We expectTEP expects to use asset allocation policies weighted most heavily to equity and fixed income funds, while maintaining some exposure to real estate and opportunistic funds. Within the fixed income allocation, long-duration funds may be used to partially hedge interest rate risk.
Risk Management
We recognizeTEP recognizes the difficulty of achieving investment objectives in light of the uncertainties and complexities of the investment markets. We also recognizeThe Company recognizes some risk must be assumed to achieve a pension plan’s long-term investment objectives. In establishing risk tolerances, the following factors affecting risk tolerance and risk objectives will be considered: plan status, plan sponsor financial status and profitability, plan features, and workforce characteristics. We haveTEP determined that the pension plans can tolerate some interim fluctuations in market value and rates of return in order to achieve long-term objectives. TEP tracks each pension plan’s portfolio relative to the benchmark through quarterly investment reviews. The reviews consist of a performance and risk assessment of all investment categories and on the portfolio as a whole. Investment managers for the pension plan may use derivative financial instruments for risk management purposes or as part of their investment strategy. Currency hedges may also be used for defensive purposes.
Relationship between Plan Assets and Benefit Obligations
The overall health of each plan will be monitored by comparing the value of plan obligations (both Accumulated Benefit Obligation and Projected Benefit Obligation) against the fair value of assets and tracking the changes in each. The frequency of this monitoring will depend on the availability of plan data, but will be no less frequent than annually via actuarial valuation.

7874



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



Target Allocation Percentages
The current target allocation percentages for the major asset categories of the plan as of December 31, 2015 follow. Each plan allows a variance of +/- 2% from these targets before funds are automatically rebalanced.
Pension Other Postretirement
TEP Plans VEBA TrustDecember 31, 2016
Cash/Treasury Bills—% 2%—% 2%
Equity Securities:  
United States Large Cap24% 39%17% 39%
United States Small Cap5% 5%5% 5%
Non-United States Developed15% 7%15% 7%
Non-United States Emerging5% 9%4% 9%
Global Equity5% —%
Global Infrastructure3% —%
Fixed Income42% 38%42% 38%
Real Estate8% —%8% —%
Private Equity1% —%1% —%
Total100% 100%100% 100%
Pension Fund Descriptions
For each type of asset category selected by the Pension Committee, ourTEP's investment consultant assembles a group of third-party fund managers and allocates a portion of the total investment to each fund manager. In the case of the private equity fund, ourTEP's investment consultant directs investments to a private equity manager that invests in third-parties’ funds.
Other Retiree Benefit Assets
As of December 31, 2015, the fair value of VEBA trust assets was $13 million, of which $5 million were fixed income investments and $8 million were equities. As of December 31, 2014, the fair value of VEBA trust assets was $12 million, of which $4 million were fixed income investments and $8 million were equities. The VEBA trust assets are primarily Level 2. There are no Level 3 assets in the VEBA trust.
ESTIMATED FUTURE BENEFIT PAYMENTS
TEP expects the following benefit payments to be made by the defined benefit pension plans and other retireepostretirement benefit plan, which reflect future service, as appropriate.
(in millions)2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-20252017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2026
Pension Benefits$17
 $18
 $19
 $21
 $22
 $125
$18
 $19
 $20
 $22
 $23
 $128
Other Retiree Benefits5
 5
 5
 6
 6
 33
Other Postretirement Benefits4
 5
 5
 6
 6
 32
DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN
We offerTEP offers a defined contribution savings plan to all eligible employees. The Internal Revenue Code identifies the plan as a qualified 401(k) plan. Participants direct the investment of contributions to certain funds in their account. We matchThe Company matches part of a participant’s contributions to the plan. TEP made matching contributions to the plan of $5 million in 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013.2014.

NOTE 9.SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION
2011 STOCK AND INCENTIVE PLAN
The Fortis acquisition of UNS Energy in 2014 resulted in accelerated vesting and expense recognition of all outstanding non-vested UNS Energy share-based awards issued under the UNS Energy 2011 Omnibus Stock and Incentive Plan (2011 Plan). The outstanding non-vested awards would otherwise have been recognized over remaining vesting periods through February 2017. TEP recognized approximately $2 million of expense in 2014 due to the accelerated vesting of the awards. TEP recorded total share-based compensation expense of $5 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 and $3 million for the year ended December 31, 2013.2014. In August 2014, UNS Energy settled all outstanding share-based compensation awards related to the 2011 Plan in cash.

7975



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



2015 SHARE UNIT PLAN
The Human Resources and Governance Committee (Committee) of UNS Energy approved and UNS Energy's Board of Directors ratified the 2015 Share Unit Plan (Plan) effective as of January 1, 2015. Under the Plan, key employees, including executive officers of UNS Energy and its subsidiaries, may be granted long-term incentive awards of performance-based share units (PSUs) and time-based restricted share units (RSUs) annually. Each PSU and RSU granted will be valued based on one share of Fortis common stock converted to U.S. dollars. Fortis common stock is traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. TEP’s share ofExchange, converted to U.S. dollars. UNS Energy allocates the obligation and expense as a subsidiary of UNS Energy is allocatedfor this plan to its subsidiaries based on the Massachusetts Formula.
UNS Energy awarded 47,776 PSUs and 23,888 RSUs in 2015 that are payable on the third anniversary of the grant date. as follows:
 2016 2015
PSUs66,974
 47,776
RSUs33,488
 23,888
The awards are classified as liability awards based on the cash settlement feature. Liability awards are measured at their fair value at the end of each reporting period and will fluctuate based on the price of Fortis common stock as well as the level of achievement of the financial performance criteria. At December 31, 2015,The awards are payable on the third anniversary of the grant date. TEP's allocated share of probable payout iswas $4 million and $2 million.million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
TEP's allocated portion of the compensation expense is recognized in Operations and Maintenance Expense on the Consolidated Statements of Income. Compensation expense associated with unvested PSUs and RSUs is recognized on a straight-line basis over the minimum required service period in an amount equal to the fair value on the measurement date or each reporting period. TEP recorded $2 million and $1 million for the yearin years ended December 31,2016 and 2015, respectively, based on its share of UNS Energy's compensation expense.

NOTE 10.SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW INFORMATION
CASH TRANSACTIONS
Year Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014
Interest, Net of Amounts Capitalized$65
 $83
 $53
$61
 $65
 $83
Income Taxes
 
 

 
 
NON-CASH TRANSACTIONS
Other significant non-cash investing and financing activities that affected recognized assets and liabilities but did not result in cash receipts or payments were as follows:
Year Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014
Accrued Capital Expenditures$28
 $29
 $24
$29
 $28
 $29
Net Cost of Removal of Interim Retirements (1)
1
 12
 25
8
 1
 12
Commitment to Purchase Capital Lease Interests
 109
 55
36
 
 109
Capital Lease Obligations (2)

 1
 9

 
 1
Proceeds from Issuance of Long-Term Debt Deposited in Trust
 
 191
Asset Retirement Obligations (3)
3
 4
 8
(1) 3
 4
(1) 
The non-cash net cost of removal of interim retirements represents an accrual for future asset retirement obligationsAROs that does not impact earnings.
(2) 
The non-cash change in capital lease obligations represents interest accrued for accounting purposes in excess of interest payments.
(3) 
The non-cash additions to asset retirement obligationsAROs and related capitalized assets represent a revision of estimated asset retirement cost due to changes in timing and amount of the expected future asset retirement obligations.AROs.


76



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



NOTE 11.FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS AND DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS
We categorize ourTEP categorizes financial instruments into the three-level hierarchy based on inputs used to determine the fair value. Level 1 inputs are unadjusted quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in an active market. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities, quoted prices in non-active markets, and pricing models whose inputs are observable, directly or

80



NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



indirectly. Level 3 inputs are unobservable and supported by little or no market activity. Transfers between levels are recorded at the end of a reporting period. There were no transfers between levels in the periods presented.
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS MEASURED AT FAIR VALUE ON A RECURRING BASIS
The following tables present, by level within the fair value hierarchy, TEP’s assets and liabilities accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis. These assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 TotalLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
(in millions)December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
Assets  
Cash Equivalents(1)
$33
 $
 $
 $33
$23
 $
 $
 $23
Restricted Cash(1)
4
 
 
 4
7
 
 
 7
Energy Derivative Contracts - Regulatory Recovery(2)

 1
 
 1
Energy Derivative Contracts - No Regulatory Recovery(2)

 
 1
 1
Energy Derivative Contracts, Regulatory Recovery(2)

 3
 
 3
Energy Derivative Contracts, No Regulatory Recovery(2)

 
 2
 2
Total Assets37
 1
 1
 39
30
 3
 2
 35
Liabilities              
Energy Derivative Contracts - Regulatory Recovery(2)

 (10) (3) (13)
Energy Derivative Contracts, Regulatory Recovery(2)

 (2) (1) (3)
Interest Rate Swap(3)

 (3) 
 (3)
 (2) 
 (2)
Total Liabilities
 (13) (3) (16)
 (4) (1) (5)
Net Total Assets (Liabilities)$37
 $(12) $(2) $23
$30
 $(1) $1
 $30
(in millions)December 31, 2014December 31, 2015
Assets  
Cash Equivalents(1)
$15
 $
 $
 $15
$33
 $
 $
 $33
Restricted Cash(1)
2
 
 
 2
4
 
 
 4
Energy Derivative Contracts - Regulatory Recovery(2)
��
 
 2
 2
Energy Derivative Contracts, Regulatory Recovery(2)

 1
 
 1
Energy Derivative Contracts, No Regulatory Recovery(2)

 
 1
 1
Total Assets17
 
 2
 19
37
 1
 1
 39
Liabilities              
Energy Derivative Contracts - Regulatory Recovery(2)

 (9) (9) (18)
Energy Derivative Contracts - No Regulatory Recovery(2)

 
 (1) (1)
Energy Derivative Contracts - Cash Flow Hedge(2)

 
 (1) (1)
Energy Derivative Contracts, Regulatory Recovery(2)

 (10) (3) (13)
Interest Rate Swap(3)

 (5) 
 (5)
 (3) 
 (3)
Total Liabilities
 (14) (11) (25)
 (13) (3) (16)
Net Total Assets (Liabilities)$17
 $(14) $(9) $(6)$37
 $(12) $(2) $23
(1) 
Cash Equivalents and Restricted Cash represent amounts held in money market funds and certificates of deposit valued at cost, including interest, which approximates fair market value. Cash Equivalents are included in Cash and Cash Equivalents on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Restricted Cash is included in Investments and Other Property on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
(2) 
Energy Contracts include gas swap agreements (Level 2), power options (Level 2), gas options (Level 3), and forward purchased power purchase and sales contracts (Level 3) entered into to reduce exposure to energy price risk, and, at December 31, 2014 a power sale option (Level 3).risk. These contracts are included in Derivative Instruments on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The valuation techniques are described below.
(3) 
The Interest Rate Swap is valued using an income valuation approach based on the 6-month LIBOR and is included in Derivative Instruments on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

8177


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



All energy derivative contracts are subject to legally enforceable master netting arrangements to mitigate credit risk. We presentTEP presents derivatives on a gross basis onin the balance sheet. The tables below presentspresent the potential offset of counterparty netting and cash collateral.
 Gross Amount Recognized in the Balance Sheets Gross Amount Not Offset in the Balance Sheets Net Amount
  Counterparty Netting of Energy Contracts Cash Collateral Received/Posted 
(in millions)December 31, 2016
Derivative Assets       
Energy Derivative Contracts$5
 $2
 $
 $3
Derivative Liabilities       
Energy Derivative Contracts(3) (2) 
 (1)
Interest Rate Swap(2) 
 
 (2)
Gross Amount Recognized on the Balance Sheets Gross Amount Not Offset on the Balance Sheets Net Amount
 Counterparty Netting of Energy Contracts Cash Collateral Received/Posted 
(in millions)December 31, 2015December 31, 2015
Derivative Assets              
Energy Derivative Contracts$2
 $1
 $
 $1
$2
 $1
 $
 $1
Derivative Liabilities              
Energy Derivative Contracts(13) (1) 
 (12)(13) (1) 
 (12)
Interest Rate Swap(3) 
 
 (3)(3) 
 
 (3)
(in millions)December 31, 2014
Derivative Assets       
Energy Derivative Contracts$2
 $2
 $
 $
Derivative Liabilities       
Energy Derivative Contracts(20) (2) 
 (18)
Interest Rate Swap(5) 
 
 (5)
DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS
We enterTEP enters into various derivative and non-derivative contracts to reduce our exposure to energy price risk associated with ourits gas and purchased power requirements. The objectives for entering into such contracts include: (i) creating price stability; (ii) meeting load and reserve requirements; and (iii) reducing exposure to price volatility that may result from delayed recovery under the PPFAC.
WeThe Company primarily applyapplies the market approach for recurring fair value measurements. When we haveTEP has observable inputs for substantially the full term of the asset or liability or useuses quoted prices in an inactive market, we categorizeTEP categorizes the instrument in Level 2. We categorizeTEP categorizes derivatives in Level 3 when we use an aggregate pricing service or published prices that represent a consensus reporting of multiple brokers.brokers is used.
For both power and gas prices we obtainTEP obtains quotes from brokers, major market participants, exchanges, or industry publications and relyrelies on ourits own price experience from active transactions in the market. WeThe Company primarily useuses one set of quotations each for power and for gas and then validatevalidates those prices using other sources. We believeTEP believes that the market information provided is reflective of market conditions as of the time and date indicated.
Published prices for energy derivative contracts may not be available due to the nature of contract delivery terms such as non-standard time blocks and non-standard delivery points. In these cases, we applyTEP applies adjustments based on historical price curve relationships, transmission, and line losses.
We estimateTEP estimates the fair value of our gas options using a Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model which includes inputs such as implied volatility, interest rates, and forward price curves.
The December 31, 2014 valuation of our power sale option was a function of observable market variables, regional power and gas prices, as well as the ratio between the two, which represents the prevailing market heat rate.
WeTEP also considerconsiders the impact of counterparty credit risk using current and historical default and recovery rates, as well as ourits own credit risk using credit default swap data.
The inputs and ourthe Company's assessments of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurements require judgment and may affect the valuation of fair value assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels. We reviewTEP reviews the assumptions underlying ourits price curves monthly.
Cash Flow Hedges
We can enter into interest rate swaps toTo mitigate the exposure to volatility in variable interest rates on debt. We havedebt, TEP has an interest rate swap agreement that expires inJanuary 2020. We alsoTEP had a purchased power purchase swap to hedge the cash flow risk associated with

82


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



a long-term power supply agreement which expired in September 2015. The after-tax unrealized gains and losses on cash flow hedge activities are reported in the statement of comprehensiveincome. The loss expected to be reclassified to earnings within the next twelve months is estimated to be $1 million. The realized

78


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



Realized losses from our cash flow hedges are shown in the following table:
Year Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014
Capital Lease Interest Expense$2
 $2
 $2
$1
 $2
 $2
Long-Term Debt Interest Expense
 1
 1

 
 1
Purchased Power1
 1
 1

 1
 1
As of December 31, 2015,2016, the total notional amount of ourthe interest rate swap was $29$23 million.
Energy Derivative Contracts - Regulatory Recovery
We recordTEP records unrealized gains and losses on energy purchase contracts that are recoverable through the PPFAC on the balance sheet as a regulatory asset or a regulatory liability rather than reporting the transaction in the income statement or in the statement of other comprehensive income, as shown in following table:
Year Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014
Unrealized Net Gain (Loss) Recorded to Regulatory (Assets) Liabilities$6
 $(18) $
$12
 $6
 $(18)
Energy Derivative Contracts - No Regulatory Recovery
Forward contracts with long-term wholesale customers do not qualify for regulatory recovery. For thesethose contracts that qualify as derivatives, we recordTEP records unrealized gains and losses in the income statement, unless and until a normal purchase or normal sale election is made. In February 2015, TEP made a normal sale election for a three-year sales option contract entered into in December 2014. In June 2015, TEP entered into long-term power trading contracts that qualify as derivatives but do not qualify for regulatory recovery. The unrealized gains and losses on the long-term power trading contracts are recorded in the income statement, and10%of any gains will be shared with ratepayers through the PPFAC, as realized.
Derivative Volumes
AtAs of December 31, 2015, we have2016, TEP has energy contracts that will settle through the fourth quarter of 2018.2019. The volumes associated with ourthe energy contracts were as follows:
December 31,December 31,
2015 20142016 2015
Power Contracts GWh1,752
 2,604
2,610
 1,752
Gas Contracts GBtu17,214
 19,932
Gas Contracts BBtu12,355
 17,214

83


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



Level 3 Fair Value Measurements
The following table providestables provide quantitative information regarding significant unobservable inputs in TEP’s Level 3 fair value measurements:
Valuation Fair Value of Range ofValuation Fair Value of Range of
Approach Assets Liabilities Unobservable Inputs Unobservable InputApproach Assets Liabilities Unobservable Inputs Unobservable Input
(in millions)December 31, 2015December 31, 2016
Forward Power ContractsMarket approach $1
 $(2) Market price per MWh $19.20
 $31.35
Market approach $2
 $(1) Market price per MWh $20.90
 $40.00
                
Gas Option ContractsOption model 
 (1) Market price per MMbtu $2.17
 $2.69

     Gas volatility 31.0% 58.3%
Level 3 Energy Contracts $1
 $(3)     $2
 $(1)    
                
(in millions)December 31, 2014December 31, 2015
Forward Power ContractsMarket approach $1
 $(6) Market price per MWh $22.35
 $39.05
Market approach $1
 $(2) Market price per MWh $19.20
 $31.35
                
Power Sale OptionMarket approach 1
 (1) Market price per MWh $27.75
 $44.94
     Market price per MMbtu $2.88
 $4.02
        
Gas Option ContractsOption model 
 (4) Market price per MMbtu $2.72
 $3.26
Option model 
 (1) Market price per MMbtu $2.17
 $2.69
     Gas volatility 30.8% 53.3%     Gas volatility 31.0% 58.3%
Level 3 Energy Contracts $2
 $(11)     $1
 $(3)    

79


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



Changes in one or more of the unobservable inputs could have a significant impact on the fair value measurement depending on the magnitude of the change and the direction of the change for each input. The impact of changes to fair value, including changes from unobservable inputs, are subject to recovery or refund through the PPFAC mechanism and are reported on the balance sheet as a regulatory asset or regulatory liability, or as a component of other comprehensive income, rather than in the income statement.
The following table presents a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of assets and liabilities classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy:
Year Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 20142016 2015
Beginning of Period$(9) $(2)$(2) $(9)
Gains (Losses) Recorded to:(1)
   
Net Regulatory Assets/Liabilities – Derivative Instruments(4) (8)
Gains (Losses) Recorded (1)
   
Net Regulatory Assets or Liabilities, Derivative Instruments2
 (4)
Electric Wholesale Sales3
 
4
 3
Settlements8
 1
(3) 8
End of Period$(2) $(9)$1
 $(2)
(1) 
Includes gains (losses) attributable to the change in unrealized gains/gains (losses) relating to assets (liabilities) still held at the end of the period of $(1)$1 million and $(8)$(1) million for the years ended December 31, 2015,2016 and 2014,2015, respectively.
CREDIT RISK
The use of contractual arrangements to manage the risks associated with changes in energy commodity prices creates credit risk exposure resulting from the possibility of non-performance by counterparties pursuant to the terms of their contractual obligations. We enterTEP enters into contracts for the physical delivery of energy and gas which contain remedies in the event of non-performance by the supply counterparties. In addition, volatile energy prices can create significant credit exposure from energy market receivables and subsequent measurement at fair value.
We haveTEP has contractual agreements for energy procurement and hedging activities that contain certain provisions requiring each companyTEP and its counterparties to post collateral under certain circumstances. These circumstances include: (i) exposures in excess of unsecured credit

84


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



limits; (ii) credit rating downgrades; or (iii) a failure to meet certain financial ratios. In the event that such credit events were to occur, wethe Company, or its counterparties, would have to provide certain credit enhancements in the form of cash, a LOC, or LOCsother acceptable security to fully collateralize our exposure to these counterparties.beyond the allowed amounts.
We considerTEP considers the effect of counterparty credit risk in determining the fair value of derivative instruments that are in a net asset position, after incorporating collateral posted by counterparties, and allocatethen allocates the credit risk adjustment to individual contracts. WeTEP also considerconsiders the impact of our ownits credit risk after considering collateral posted on instruments that are in a net liability position, after considering collateral posted, and allocatethen allocates the credit risk adjustment to all individual contracts.
Material adverse changes could trigger credit risk-related contingent features. At December 31, 2015, theThe value of all derivative instruments in net liability positions under contracts with credit risk-related contingent features, including contracts under the normal purchase normal sale exception, was $8 million as of December 31, 2016, compared with $20 million compared with $27 million atas of December 31, 2014. At2015. As of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP had less than $1 million ofno LOCs as credit enhancements with its counterparties. If the credit risk-relatedrisk contingent features were triggered on December 31, 2015,2016, TEP would have been required to post an additional $20$8 million of collateral of which $8 million relates to outstanding net payable balances for settled positions.
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS NOT CARRIED AT FAIR VALUE
The fair value of a financial instrument is the market price to sell an asset or transfer a liability at the measurement date. We useTEP uses the following methods and assumptions for estimating the fair value of our financial instruments:
Borrowings under revolving credit facilities approximate the fair valuesvalue due to the short-term nature of these financial instruments. These items have been excluded from the table below.
For long-term debt, we useTEP uses quoted market prices, when available, or calculatecalculates the present value of remaining cash flows at the balance sheet date. When calculating present value, we usethe Company uses current market rates for bonds with similar characteristics such as credit rating and time-to-maturity. We considerTEP considers the principal amounts of variable rate debt outstanding to be reasonable estimates of the fair value. WeThe Company also incorporateincorporates the impact of ourits own credit risk using a credit default swap rate.

80


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



The use of different estimation methods and/or market assumptions may yield different estimated fair value amounts. The following table includes the face value and estimated fair value of ourTEP's long-term debt:
Fair Value
Hierarchy
 Face Value Fair Value
Fair Value
Hierarchy
 Face Value Fair Value
 December 31, December 31,
(in millions) 2015 2014 2015 2014 2016 2015 2016 2015
Liabilities                
Long-Term Debt, including Current MaturitiesLevel 2 $1,466
 $1,375
 $1,529
 $1,457
Level 2 $1,466
 $1,466
 $1,472
 $1,529

NOTE 12.INCOME TAXES
Income tax expense differs from the amount of income tax determined by applying the United States statutory federal income tax rate of 35% to pre-tax income due to the following:
 Year Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 2013
Federal Income Tax Expense at Statutory Rate$70
 $56
 $52
State Income Tax Expense, Net of Federal Deduction8
 7
 7
Federal/State Tax Credits(8) (5) (2)
Allowance for Equity Funds Used During Construction(1) (2) (1)
Deferred Tax Asset Valuation Allowance1
 
 2
Investment Tax Credit Basis Adjustment - Creation of Regulatory Asset
 
 (11)
Other2
 2
 1
Total Federal and State Income Tax Expense$72
 $58
 $48

85


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



Investment Tax Credit Basis Adjustment - Creation of Regulatory Asset
Renewable energy assets are eligible for investment tax credits. We reduce the income tax basis of those qualifying assets by half of the related investment tax credit. Historically, the difference between the income tax basis of the assets and the book basis under GAAP was recorded as a deferred tax liability with an offsetting charge to income tax expense in the year the qualifying asset was placed in service. In June 2013, we recorded a regulatory asset and corresponding reduction of income tax expense of $11 million to recover previously recorded income tax expense through future rates as a result of the 2013 Rate Order. The regulatory asset will be amortized as income tax expense as the qualifying assets are depreciated.
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2016 2015 2014
Federal Income Tax Expense at Statutory Rate$64
 $70
 $56
State Income Tax Expense, Net of Federal Deduction6
 8
 7
Federal/State Tax Credits(8) (8) (5)
Allowance for Equity Funds Used During Construction(1) (1) (2)
Deferred Tax Asset Valuation Allowance(2) 1
 
Other
 2
 2
Total Federal and State Income Tax Expense$59
 $72
 $58
Income tax expense included in the income statements consists of the following:
Year Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2015 2014 20132016 2015 2014
Current Tax Expense (Benefit)          
Federal$
 $(1) $(8)$
 $
 $(1)
State
 
 (2)
 
 
Total Current Tax Expense (Benefit)
 (1) (10)
 
 (1)
Deferred Tax Expense (Benefit)          
Federal66
 54
 47
60
 66
 54
Federal Investment Tax Credits(6) (4) (1)(6) (6) (4)
State12
 9
 12
5
 12
 9
Total Deferred Tax Expense (Benefit)72
 59
 58
59
 72
 59
Total Federal and State Income Tax Expense$72
 $58
 $48
$59
 $72
 $58

81


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



The significant components of deferred income tax assets and liabilities consist of the following:
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)2015 20142016 2015
Gross Deferred Income Tax Assets      
Capital Lease Obligations$27
 $96
$35
 $27
Net Operating Loss Carryforwards156
 187
129
 156
Customer Advances and Contributions in Aid of Construction20
 19
20
 20
Alternative Minimum Tax Credit24
 24
25
 24
Accrued Postretirement Benefits23
 23
23
 23
Emission Allowance Inventory9
 10
9
 9
Investment Tax Credit Carryforward32
 31
32
 32
Other53
 54
60
 53
Total Gross Deferred Income Tax Assets344
 444
333
 344
Deferred Tax Assets Valuation Allowance(4) (2)
 (4)
Gross Deferred Income Tax Liabilities      
Plant, Net(750) (699)(774) (750)
Capital Lease Assets, Net(12) (74)(24) (12)
Pensions(27) (27)(26) (27)
PPFAC
 (8)
Other(19) (24)(38) (19)
Total Gross Deferred Income Tax Liabilities(808) (832)(862) (808)
Net Deferred Income Tax Liabilities$(468) $(390)$529
 $468

86


NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)    



TEP has recorded no valuation allowance against credit and loss carryforward deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2016 and a $4 million valuation allowance against credit and loss carryforward deferred tax assets atas of December 31, 2015 and a $2 million valuation allowance against credit carryforward deferred tax assets at December 31, 2014.2015. Management believes TEP will not produce sufficient taxable income in the future to use allrealize credit and loss carryforwards before they expire.
As of December 31, 2015,2016, TEP had the following carryforward amounts:
(in millions)Amount Expiring YearAmount Expiring Year
Federal Net Operating Loss$430
 2031-34$364
 2031-34
State Net Operating Loss114
 2016-34
State Credits10
 2016-3010
 2017-29
Alternative Minimum Tax Credit24
 None25
 None
Investment Tax Credits32
 2032-3532
 2032-36
Uncertain Tax Positions
A reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances of unrecognized tax benefits follows:
December 31,December 31,
(in millions)2015 20142016 2015
Beginning of Period$4
 $2
$5
 $4
Additions Based on Tax Positions Taken in the Current Year1
 2
7
 1
End of Period$5
 $4
$12
 $5
Unrecognized tax benefits, if recognized, would reduce income tax expense by $1 million atas of December 31, 20152016 and would not reduce income tax expense at December 31, 2014.2015.
TEP recorded no interest expense during 20152016 and 20142015 related to uncertain tax positions. In addition, TEP had no interest payable and no penalties accrued atas of December 31, 20152016 and 2014.2015.
TEP has been audited by the IRS through tax year 2010. TEP is not currently under audit by any federal or state tax agencies. The balance in unrecognized tax benefits could change in the next 12 months as a result of IRS audits, but we arethe Company is unable to determine the amount of change.


82

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Concluded)

NOTE 13.RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
We considerTEP considers the applicability and impact of all accounting standard updates issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Updates.Board (FASB). The following updates have been issued, but have not yet been adopted by TEP. Updates not listed below were assessed and determined to be either not applicable or are expected to have minimal impact on ourthe Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or disclosures.
Revenue from Contracts with CustomersREVENUE FROM CONTRACTS WITH CUSTOMERS
In May 2014, the FASB issued an accounting standardsstandard update that will eliminate the transaction and industry-specific revenue recognition guidance under current U.S. GAAP and replace it with a principles basedprinciples-based approach for determining revenue recognition. In July 2015, the FASB voted to defer the effective date of the revenue recognition standard by one year, and TEP is required to adopt the new guidance for annual and interim periods beginning January 1, 2018. The Company has elected not to early adopt this standard.
The revenue standard requires entities to apply the guidance retrospectively or recognizeunder the modified retrospective approach by recognizing the cumulative effect of initially applying the guidance as an adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings supplemented by additional disclosures. TEP expects to use the modified retrospective approach.
Retail and wholesale sales of energy based on regulator-approved tariff rates represent TEP’s primary sources of revenue. TEP does not expect that the adoption of this standard will have a material impact on the recognition of revenue from energy sales to retail or wholesale customers. Certain industry specific interpretative issues, including contributions in aid of construction, remain outstanding. The conclusions reached, if different than currently anticipated, could change the Company's expected method of adoption and have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.
LEASES
In July 2015,February 2016, the FASB votedissued an accounting standard update that will require the recognition of leased assets and liabilities by lessees for those leases classified as operating leases under current GAAP. The standard is effective for periods beginning January 1, 2019, and is to deferbe applied using a modified retrospective approach with practical expedient options. Early adoption is permitted. TEP is evaluating the effective dateimpact of this update to its financial statements and disclosures.
RESTRICTED CASH
In November 2016, the revenue recognitionFASB issued an accounting standard by one year. We are requiredupdate that will require entities to adoptshow the new guidancechanges in the total of cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash or restricted cash equivalents in the statement of cash flows. As a result, entities will no longer present transfers between cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents in the statement of cash flows. The standard is effective for annual and interim periods beginning January 1, 2018.
Retail sales of electricity based on regulator-approved tariff rates represent TEP's primary source of revenue. While it2018, and is expected that tariff-based sales to regulated customers are within the scope of the new standard, this question is being reviewed by the AICPA Financial Reporting Executive Committee. TEP is in the process of assessing its performance obligations in its wholesale contracts and identifying other contracts with customers.
Classification and Measurement of Financial Instruments
In January 2016, the FASB amended the guidance on the classification and measurement of financial instruments. Most notably, the new accounting standard update requires the following:

87

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Concluded)

all equity investments in unconsolidated entities (other than those accounted for using the equity method of accounting) to be measured at fair value through earnings; however, entities will be able to elect to record equity investments without readily determinable fair values at cost, less impairment, and plus or minus subsequent adjustments for observable price changes; and
financial assets and financial liabilities to be presented separately in the notes to the financial statements, grouped by measurement category and form of financial asset.
TEPapplied using a retrospective approach. Early adoption is required to adopt the new guidance for annual and interim periods beginning January 1, 2018.permitted. TEP is evaluating the impact of this update to ourits financial statements and disclosures.

NOTE 14.QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA (UNAUDITED)
OurTEP's quarterly financial information is unaudited, but, in management’s opinion, includes all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation. OurTEP's utility business is seasonal in nature. Peak sales periods for TEP generally occur during the summer.Accordingly, comparisons among quarters of a year may not represent overall trends and changes in operations.
First Quarter Second Quarter Third Quarter Fourth Quarter
First
Quarter
 
Second
Quarter
 
Third
Quarter
 
Fourth
Quarter
(in millions)

20152016
Operating Revenue$273
 $340
 $409
 $284
$243
 $317
 $394
 $281
Operating Income28
 74
 120
 36
12
 72
 122
 37
Net Income9
 38
 69
 12
Net Income (Loss)(1) 41
 72
 12
              
(in millions)

2014
2015
Operating Revenue$256
 $322
 $387
 $305
$273
 $340
 $409
 $284
Operating Income32
 80
 85
 34
28
 74
 120
 36
Net Income9
 39
 40
 15
9
 38
 69
 12



88



ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
None.

ITEM 9A.9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
TEP’s Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) and Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) supervised and participated in TEP’s evaluation of its disclosure controls and procedures as such term is defined under Rule 13a – 15(e) or Rule 15d – 15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), as of the end of the period covered by this report. Disclosure controls and procedures are controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in TEP’s periodic reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act, is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms. These disclosure controls and procedures are also designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by TEP in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, including the principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Based upon the evaluation performed, TEP’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that TEP’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective.effective as of December 31, 2016.
While TEP continually strives to improve its disclosure controls and procedures to enhance the quality of its financial reporting, there has been no change in TEP’s internal control over financial reporting during 20152016 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, TEP’s internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION
None.


89




PART III
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Directors
All of the members of the TEP Board of Directors are executive officers and employees of TEP, a wholly owned subsidiary of UNS Energy.
The directors of TEP are elected annually by TEP's sole shareholder, UNS Energy, acting at the direction of the Board of Directors of UNS Energy.
The names and information concerning the members of the TEP Board of Directors are set forth below:
Name Age Served As Director Since Business Experience
David G. Hutchens 49 2011 
Mr. Hutchens has served as Chief Executive Officer of TEP since 2014; President of TEP since 2011; Executive Vice President of TEP in 2011; Vice President of TEP from 2007-2011. Mr. Hutchens joined TEP in 1995.
Mr. Hutchens' extensive experience in the electric and gas utility business and his position as President and Chief Executive Officer provide him with intimate knowledge of TEP's operations and such experience contributes to the diverse knowledge, experience, skills and qualifications of the TEP Board.
Kevin P. Larson 59 2009 
Mr. Larson has served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of TEP since September 2005. Mr. Larson joined TEP in 1985 and thereafter held various positions in its finance department and investment subsidiaries. He was elected Vice President in March 1997. In October 2000, he was elected Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Larson is also a Chartered Financial Analyst.
Mr. Larson's extensive experience in the electric and gas utility business and his position as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer provide him with intimate knowledge of TEP's financial affairs and such experience contributes to the diverse knowledge, experience, skills and qualifications of the TEP Board.
Todd. C. Hixon 49 2015 
Mr. Hixon has served as Vice President and General Counsel of TEP since May 2011. Mr. Hixon joined TEP’s legal department in 1998 and served in a variety of capacities, most recently serving as Associate General Counsel.
Mr. Hixon's extensive experience in utility legal and regulatory matters and his position as Vice President and General Counsel provide him with intimate knowledge of TEP's legal and regulatory affairs and such experience contributes to the diverse knowledge, experience, skills and qualifications of the TEP Board.

90



Executive Officers
Executive Officers, who are elected annually by TEP’s Board of Directors, acting at the direction of the Board of Directors of UNS Energy, are as follows:
Name Age Position(s) Held 
Executive
Officer Since
David G. Hutchens 49
 President and Chief Executive Officer 2007
Kevin P. Larson 59
 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 1997
Kentton C. Grant 57
 Vice President and Treasurer 2007
Susan M. Gray 43
 Vice President, T&D Operations and Engineering 2015
Todd C. Hixon 49
 Vice President and General Counsel 2011
Karen G. Kissinger 61
 Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer 1991
Mark C. Mansfield 60
 Vice President, Energy Resources 2012
Frank P. Marino 51
 Vice President and Controller 2013
Thomas A. McKenna 67
 Vice President, Energy Delivery 2007
Catherine E. Ries 56
 Vice President, Customer and Human Resources 2007
Mary Jo Smith 58
 Vice President, Public Policy 2015
Herlinda H. Kennedy 54
 Corporate Secretary 2006

91



David G. HutchensMr. Hutchens has served as Chief Executive Officer of TEP since 2014; President of TEP since 2011; Executive Vice President of TEP in 2011; Vice President of TEP from 2007-2011. Mr. Hutchens joined TEP in 1995.
Kevin P. LarsonMr. Larson has served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of TEP since September 2005. Mr. Larson joined TEP in 1985 and thereafter held various positions in its finance department and investment subsidiaries. He was elected Vice President in March 1997. In October 2000, he was elected Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.
Kentton C. GrantMr. Grant was elected Treasurer in 2010 and has served as Vice President of TEP since January 2007. Mr. Grant joined TEP in 1995.
Susan GrayMs. Gray has served as Vice President of T&D Operations and Engineering since 2015. Ms. Gray joined TEP in 1994 as a student engineer, and has served in a variety of capacities since then, most recently serving as Senior Director of T&D.
Todd C. HixonMr. Hixon has served as Vice President and General Counsel of TEP since May 2011. Mr. Hixon joined TEP’s legal department in 1998 and served in a variety of capacities, most recently serving as Associate General Counsel.
Karen G. KissingerMs. Kissinger has served as Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer of TEP since August 2013. Ms. Kissinger served as Vice President, Controller, and Chief Compliance Officer from 2001 to 2013. Ms. Kissinger joined TEP as Vice President and Controller in January 1991.
Mark C. MansfieldMr. Mansfield has served as Vice President, Energy Resources since 2012. He joined the company in 2008 as Senior Director of Generation.
Frank P. MarinoMr. Marino has served as Vice President and Controller of TEP since August 2013. Mr. Marino joined TEP as Assistant Controller in January 2013. Prior to joining TEP, he served in various roles at the AES Corporation, a global power company. In 2012 he served as AES' Vice President for Business Demand and Outsourcing Management, and from 2007-2011 he served as Chief Financial Officer for two different business units.
Thomas A. McKennaMr. McKenna has served as Vice President, Energy Delivery since August 2013. Mr. McKenna was named Vice President, Engineering in January 2007. Mr. McKenna joined an affiliate of TEP in 1998. Mr. McKenna is retiring from TEP on May 1, 2016.
Catherine E. RiesMs. Ries has served as Vice President, Customer and Human Resources since August 2015. Prior to that she served as Vice President of Human Resources and Information Technology, since May 2011. Ms. Ries joined TEP as Vice President of Human Resources in June 2007.
Mary Jo SmithMs. Smith has served as Vice President of Public Policy since 2015. Ms. Smith joined TEP as Director of Investor Relations in 2003 and most recently served as Senior Director of Regulatory Services and Corporate Communications.
Herlinda H. KennedyMs. Kennedy has served as Corporate Secretary of TEP since September 2006. Ms. Kennedy joined TEP in 1980 and was named assistant Corporate Secretary in 1999.
Code of Ethics
See Part I, Item 1. Business, SEC Reports Available on TEP's Website.
Audit and Risk Committee of the UNS Energy Board
The Audit and Risk Committee of the Board of Directors of UNS Energy was established for the purpose of overseeing the accounting and financial reporting process and audits of the financial statements of UNS Energy and its consolidated subsidiaries, including TEP.
The Audit and Risk Committee reviews current and projected financial results of operations, selects an independent registered public accounting firm to audit UNS Energy’s and TEP’s financial statements annually, reviews and discusses the scope of such audit, receives and reviews the audit reports and recommendations and transmits its recommendations to the UNS Energy Board of Directors. The Audit and Risk Committee of UNS Energy reviews UNS Energy’s and TEP’s accounting and internal control procedures with the internal audit department from time to time, makes recommendations to the board of UNS Energy for any changes deemed necessary in such procedures and performs such other functions as delegated by the UNS Energy Board of Directors.
The following UNS Energy directors are members of the Audit and Risk Committee of UNS Energy’s Board of Directors:
Ramiro G. Peru, Chair
Robert A. Elliott

92



James P. Laurito
Gregory A. Pivirotto
Joaquin Ruiz
All Audit and Risk Committee members possess the level of financial literacy and accounting or related financial management expertise required by New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) rules. UNS Energy’s Board of Directors has determined that, while each member of the Audit and Risk Committee has accounting and/or related financial management expertise, Mr. Ramiro PeruItem 10 is an “audit committee financial expert” as that term is defined by applicable SEC regulations.
Human Resources and Governance Committee of the UNS Energy Board
TEP is a wholly owned subsidiary of UNS Energy. As described in Part III, Item 11 Executive Compensation below, the TEP Board of Directors does not have a Compensation Committee and does not make compensation-related decisionsomitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2)(c) for the executive officers of TEP. Instead, the UNS Energy Board of Directors' Human Resources and Governance Committee makes compensation-related decisions, including the approval of the compensation plan described in Part III, Item 11 Executive Compensation.
The following UNS Energy directors are members of the Human Resources and Governance Committee of UNS Energy’s Board of Directors:
Louise L. Francesconi, Chair
Lawrence J. Aldrich
Robert A. Elliott
Barry Perry
UNS Energy Directors
Due to the role of the Audit and Risk Committee and the Human Resources and Governance Committee of the UNS Energy Board of Directors described above, the following information is included with respect to the members of the UNS Energy Board of Directors (other than with respect to Mr. Hutchens, who is also a member of the Board of Directors of UNS Energy):
Name Age Served as Director Since Business Experience
Lawrence J. Aldrich 63 2000 
Partner, Newport Board Group, since 2014; Chairman and Executive Director, Arizona Business Coalition on Health, since 2011; President and Chief Executive Officer of University Physicians Healthcare (UPH), a healthcare organization, from 2009 to 2010; Senior Vice President/Corporate Operations and General Counsel for UPH from 2007 to 2008; President of Aldrich Capital Company, an acquisition, management and consulting firm, since 2007; Chief Operating Officer of The Critical Path Institute, a non-profit medical research company focusing in drug development, from 2005 to 2007.
Mr.��Aldrich’s extensive experience in the areas of public relations/advertising, finance, legal, human resources, marketing, engineering, operations, government/regulatory, information technology, insurance/health care, and his significant community involvement in Arizona and Tucson contribute to the diverse knowledge, skills and qualifications of the UNS Energy Board.

93



Robert A. Elliott 60 2003 
President and owner of Elliott Accounting, an accounting, tax, management and investment advisory services firm, since 1983; Chair of AAA of Arizona, a regional automotive and travel club, since 2014 and Director since 2007; Director and Corporate Secretary of Southern Arizona Community Bank, a banking institution, from 1998 to 2010; Television Analyst/Pre-game Show Co-host for Fox Sports Arizona from 1998 to 2009; Chairman of the Board of the Tucson Airport Authority, an airport operator/manager, from January 2006 to January 2007; President and Chairman of the Board of the National Basketball Retired Players Association from 2011-2013; Director of University of Arizona Foundation, a philanthropic organization, since 2011.
Mr. Elliott’s extensive experience in the areas of accounting, audit, banking and corporate tax, and his significant community involvement in Arizona and Tucson contribute to the diverse knowledge, skills and qualifications of the UNS Energy Board.
Louise L. Francesconi 63 2008 
President of Raytheon Missile Systems, a defense electronics corporation, from 1997 until her retirement in 2008; Director of Stryker Corporation, a medical technology company, since July 2006; Chairman of the Board of Trustees for TMC Healthcare, a hospital, since 1999; Director of Global Solar Energy, Inc., a manufacturer of solar panels and other solar-related products, from 2008 to 2011.
Ms. Francesconi’s extensive experience in the areas of accounting, public relations/advertising, finance, legal, human resources/benefits, marketing, engineering, operations, audit, government/regulatory, information technology and insurance/healthcare, and her significant community involvement in Arizona and Tucson contribute to the diverse knowledge, skills and qualifications of the UNS Energy Board.
James P. Laurito 59 2014 
President and CEO of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Company since November 1, 2014. Mr. Laurito joined Central Hudson as President in November 2009. Prior to that, he served as President of both New York State Electric and Gas Corporation and Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation from 2003 until 2009.
Mr. Laurito's extensive experience in the electric and gas utility business contribute to the diverse knowledge, skills and qualifications of the UNS Energy Board.
Barry Perry 51 2014 
President and CEO of Fortis since December 31, 2014.
Prior to his current position at Fortis, Mr. Perry served as Vice President, Finance and CFO of Fortis since 2004. Mr. Perry joined the Fortis organization in 2000 as VP, Finance and CFO of Newfoundland Power. Previously, he held the position of VP, Treasurer with a global forest products company and Corporate Controller with a large crude oil refinery.
Mr. Perry's extensive experience in the electric and gas utility business contribute to the diverse knowledge, skills and qualifications of the UNS Energy Board.
Ramiro G. Peru 60 2008 
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Phelps Dodge Corporation, a mining corporation, from 2004 until his retirement in 2007; Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Phelps Dodge Corporation from 1999 to 2004; Director of Anthem, Inc. (formerly WellPoint, Inc.), a health benefits company, since 2004; Board of Directors, Fiesta Bowl, since 2012; Director of SM Energy Company, 2014 - 2015.
Mr. Peru’s extensive experience in the areas of accounting, corporate communications, finance, legal, human resources/benefits, audit, government/regulatory, corporate tax, information technology, insurance/health care and environmental contributes to the diverse knowledge, skills and qualifications of the UNS Energy Board.

94



Gregory A. Pivirotto 63 2008 
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of University Medical Center Corporation, in Tucson, from 1994 until his retirement in 2010; Adjunct Professor at the University of Arizona College of Law since 2013; certified public accountant since 1978; Director of Arizona Hospital & Healthcare Association, a trade association providing advocacy, education and service to hospitals and other healthcare organizations, from 1997 to 2005; Director of Tucson Airport Authority, an airport operator/manager, from 2008 to January 2014; Member of the Advisory Board of Harris Bank Arizona from 2010 to 2013; Director of the Donor Network of Arizona from 1993 to 2006 and since 2012.
Mr. Pivirotto’s extensive experience in the areas of accounting, public relations/advertising, finance, legal, human resources/benefits, marketing, operations, audit, government/regulatory, banking, corporate tax, information technology and insurance/healthcare, and his significant community involvement in Arizona and Tucson contribute to the diverse knowledge, skills and qualifications of the UNS Energy Board.
Joaquin Ruiz 64 2005 
Professor of Geosciences, University of Arizona, an educational institution, since 1983; Dean, College of Science, University of Arizona, since 2000; Executive Dean of the University of Arizona College of Letters, Arts and Science since 2009 and Vice President for Strategy and Innovation since 2012.
Mr. Ruiz’s extensive experience in the areas of renewables and environmental, public relations/advertising, human resources/benefits, operations, government/regulatory, information technology, and his significant community involvement in Arizona and Tucson contribute to the diverse knowledge, skills and qualifications of the UNS Energy Board.
Form 10-K.


95


ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
This section describes TEP’s overall executive compensation policies and practices and specifically analyzes the total compensation for the following executive officers, referred to as the Named Executives:
David G. Hutchens, President and Chief Executive Officer;
Kevin P. Larson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer;
Karen G. Kissinger, Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer;
Todd C. Hixon, Vice President and General Counsel; and
Kentton C. Grant, Vice President and Treasurer
COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY
Compensation Committee
TEP is a wholly owned subsidiary of UNS Energy (itself a wholly owned, indirect subsidiary of Fortis). The TEP Board of Directors does not have a Compensation Committee and does not make compensation-related decisions for the executive officers of TEP. The same individuals serve as executive officers of both UNS Energy and TEP. The UNS Energy Board of Directors Human Resources and Governance Committee makes all compensation decisions for all such executive officers, including the design of the 2015 executive compensation program, and also approves this disclosure, among other responsibilities. Any references to a Compensation Committee in this section refer to the UNS Energy Human Resources and Governance Committee.
TEP Compensation as a Component of UNS Energy Total Compensation
The Compensation Committee designs its programs to compensate UNS Energy executive officers for services to UNS Energy and all UNS Energy subsidiaries, including TEP. The amounts shown in this section represent the Named Executives' compensation allocated to TEP and its subsidiaries only, which, in 2015 amounts to 80.90% of the Named Executives total compensation for service provided to UNS Energy and its subsidiaries. The percentage allocated to TEP is obtained using the Massachusetts formula, an industry-wide accepted method of allocating common costs to affiliated entities based on an equal weighting of payroll costs, plant/tangible assets and total revenues. References to the Company refer to UNS Energy and include all UNS Energy subsidiaries. The Performance Enhancement Plan (PEP) includes target goals attributable to TEP, UNS Electric, and UNS Gas.
Objectives of the Compensation Program
The Compensation Committee has established a balanced total compensation program that ensures that a significant part of executive officer compensation is performance-based. Corporate goals are designed to focus executive officers and all non-union employees on successful execution of the Company’s strategy and annual operating plan.
The Company’s executive officer compensation policies and decisions have the following objectives:
1.Attracting, motivating and retaining highly-skilled executives;
2.Linking the payment of compensation to the achievement of critical short- and long-term financial and strategic objectives; providing safe, reliable and economically available electric and gas service; and aligning performance objectives of management with those of its other employees by using similar performance measures for both groups;
3.Balancing risk and reward to align the interests of management with those of the Company’s stakeholders and encouraging management to think and act like owners, taking into account the interests of the public that the Company serves;
4.Maximizing the financial efficiency of the compensation program to avoid unnecessary tax, accounting and cash flow costs; and
5.Encouraging management to achieve outstanding results through appropriate means by delivering compensation in a manner consistent with established and emerging corporate governance “best practices."

96


Summary of 2015 Executive Officer Compensation Program
Compensation ComponentKey FeaturesPurpose
Base Salary
Increases considered on an annual basis to remain near the median of the Company's peer group (as described in Elements of Compensation - Base Salary, below)
Intended to constitute a sufficient component of total compensation to discourage inappropriate risk-taking
Provide a fixed amount of cash compensation to the Company's Named Executives
Short-term Incentive
Compensation (Performance Enhancement Program or PEP)
Incentive plans are structured identically for executive and non-executive employees and across business units/functions, uniting all non-union employees in the achievement of common goals
All incentive plans are capped at 150% of target, protecting against the possibility that executives would try to maximize bonuses by taking short-term actions not supportive of long-term objectives.
Must achieve at least the threshold level of net income to receive payment above 50% of target for other performance measures; this cap limits non-financial goal payout if the financial goals are not met
Motivate and reward achieving or exceeding the Company's short-term performance goals, reinforcing pay-for-performance
Focus entire Company on key customer, operational and financial objectives
Long-Term Incentive
Compensation (LTI or equity-
based compensation)
LTI compensation is delivered in a combination of performance share units (PSUs) and restricted share units (RSUs)
Ultimate value earned from the LTI program is based on both absolute and relative shareholder value and longer-term operating performance
PSUs represent 67% of the target award with 50% of the shares earned based on achievement of cumulative net income goals and 50% of the shares earned based on achievement of Fortis's TSR relative to an industry peer group over a three-year period
RSUs represent 33% of the target awards, and cliff vest on the 3rd anniversary of grant
Opportunities for ownership and financial reward in support of the Company’s longer-term financial goals and stock price growth; also supports retention objective
Provide a link between compensation and long-term shareholder interests as reflected in changes in Fortis stock price
The Compensation Committee considers decisions regarding each component of pay in the context of each executive officer’s total compensation. For example, if the Compensation Committee increases an executive officer’s base salary, it also considers the resultant impact on short- and long-term performance-based incentive compensation and compares total compensation levels to competitive practice. See Compensation Analysis, below. The Compensation Committee does not directly consider the value of previous equity awards in setting current year total compensation opportunities, but does review the value of outstanding equity awards to assess the degree to which such awards support the Company’s performance motivation, retention, and shareholder alignment objectives.
Each of these components is described in more detail below and in the narrative and footnotes to the supporting tables. The following sections highlight how the above objectives are reflected in the Company’s compensation program.
Attracting, Retaining and Motivating Executives
To attract, retain and motivate highly-skilled employees, the Company provides the Named Executives with compensation packages that are competitive with those offered by other electric and gas utility companies of comparable size and complexity and/or electric and gas utility companies thought to be competitors for executives.

97


The Compensation Committee generally targets total direct compensation for the Named Executives to be, on average, at the median of selected comparable companies identified below under the Compensation Analysis section. Under this approach, newly promoted executives and those new to their role may be placed below the median to reflect their limited experience and evolving skill set. Similarly, executives with longer tenure and therefore an above-market skill set, or those executives who are sustained high performers over time and are most critical to the Company’s long-term success, may be placed above the median. The Company believes that this strategy enables it to successfully hire, motivate and retain talented executives while ensuring a reasonable overall compensation cost structure relative to its peers.
In addition to providing competitive direct compensation opportunities, the Company also provides certain indirect compensation and benefits programs that are intended to assist in attracting and retaining high quality executives. These programs include pension and retirement programs and are described in more detail below and in the narratives that accompany the tables that follow this section.
Linking Compensation to Performance
The Company’s compensation program seeks to link the actual compensation earned by the Named Executives to their performance and that of the Company and Fortis. To ensure that the executive officers are held accountable for achieving the Company’s financial, operational and strategic objectives and for creating Fortis shareholder value, the Company believes that the percentage of pay at risk should increase with the level of responsibility within the Company. The target amounts of performance-based pay programs comprise approximately 45% to 70% of the total direct compensation opportunity for the Named Executives. Of the performance-based compensation, approximately 30-50% is short-term and 50-70% is long-term. Placing a greater emphasis on long-term performance-based compensation encourages executive officers to focus on the long-term impact of their actions. Non-variable compensation, such as benefits and perquisites, is de-emphasized in the total compensation program to reinforce the linkage between compensation and performance.
Balancing Risk and Reward to Align the Interests of the Company’s Named Executives with Stakeholders
The Company's compensation program seeks to align the interests of the Named Executives with those of the Company’s key stakeholders, including Fortis shareholders, customers, the community and employees. The Company uses the short-term incentive compensation component to focus the Named Executives on the importance of providing safe and reliable customer service, creating a safe work environment for employees and improving financial performance by linking their short-term cash incentive compensation to achievement of these objectives. The Company uses an equity-based compensation component of its compensation package to align the interests of the Named Executives with those of the Fortis shareholders. The Company's compensation strategy mitigates risk by emphasizing long-term compensation and financial performance measures correlated with shareholder value. UNS Energy believes that equity-based compensation, together with the three-year vesting of share-based awards, result in compensation programs that do not encourage excessive risk-taking by management relating to the Company’s business and operations, and increase executive officer accountability in the performance of the Company. In addition, the Compensation Committee has the ability to reduce short-term incentive compensation award payouts, in its sole discretion, based upon factors other than Company performance measures. In considering the design alternatives, the Compensation Committee continually evaluates the potential for unintended consequences of its compensation program.
Maximizing the Financial Efficiency of the Program
In structuring the total compensation package for the Named Executives, the Compensation Committee evaluates the accounting cost, cash flow implications and tax deductibility of compensation to mitigate financial inefficiencies to the greatest extent possible. For instance, as part of this process, the Compensation Committee evaluates whether compensation costs are fixed or variable and places a heavier weighting on variable pay elements to calibrate expense with the achievement of operating performance objectives.
Adhering to Corporate Governance “Best Practices”
The Compensation Committee continually seeks to evaluate the executive officer compensation program in light of corporate governance “best practices.” For example, the short-term and long-term incentive compensation programs include a clawback provision, and the Change in Control Agreements do not contain an excise tax gross-up provision, all of which are discussed in more detail below.
The Compensation Committee also reviews tally sheets and wealth accumulation analyses, which are designed to assist the Compensation Committee in evaluating the reasonableness of the compensation provided to Named Executives.

98


Compensation Analysis
To provide a foundation for the executive officer compensation program, the Company periodically benchmarks its Named Executives’ compensation levels and practices against a peer group of companies intended to represent the Company's competitors for business and talent. The peer group, which is reviewed periodically and approved by the Compensation Committee, includes the 12 utility companies named below that are comparable to UNS Energy in size, as measured by annual revenues and market capitalization (the Peer Group). As of November 2013, the date when the most recent benchmarking analysis was performed, UNS Energy’s revenues and number of employees approximate the median of the Peer Group; total assets and market capitalization were between the 25th percentile and the median; net income is below the 25th percentile.
2015 Peer Group
ALLETE, Inc.NorthWestern Corp.
Avista Corp.NV Energy, Inc.
Cleco Corp.PNM Resources Inc.
El Paso Electric Co.Portland General Electric Co.
Great Plains Energy, Inc.UIL Holdings Corp.
IDACORP Inc.Westar Energy Inc.
ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION
Base Salary
The Company uses base salary to provide each Named Executive a set amount of money during the year with the expectation that he or she will perform his or her responsibilities to the best of his or her ability and in the best interests of the Company. The Company believes that competitive base salaries are necessary to attract and retain executives critical to achieving its business goals. In general, Named Executives’ base salaries are targeted to the median of the Peer Group described above. However, individual salaries can and do vary from the Peer Group median data based on such factors as: (i) the competitive environment for Named Executives; and (ii) incumbent responsibilities, experience, skills and performance relative to similarly situated executive officers within the Company. Named Executives' salaries range from below the 25th percentile to the median of the Peer Group at the time the last benchmarking review was conducted.
Increases to Named Executives’ base salaries are considered annually by the Compensation Committee. In approving base salary increases for Named Executives other than the CEO, the Compensation Committee also considers the CEO's recommendations.
In February 2015, the Compensation Committee approved 2% base salary increases for the Named Executives, which were consistent with salary increases as a percent of salary for other non-union Company employees. Base salary as a percentage of total compensation for the Named Executives ranged from approximately 30-55% of target total direct compensation. Additional information is provided in the Summary Compensation Table below.
Short-Term Incentive Compensation (Cash Awards)
The Company's short-term incentive compensation consists of cash awards under the Performance Enhancement Plan (“PEP”), which links a significant portion of the Named Executives’ annual compensation to the Company’s annual financial and operational performance.
Each year, before the end of the first quarter, the Compensation Committee establishes performance objectives that must be met in whole or in part before the Company pays PEP awards. The key performance objectives are tailored to drive behavior that supports the Company’s strategy of delivering safe, reliable service and value to customers and a fair return to shareholders over time. The Compensation Committee generally attempts to align the target opportunity for each Named Executive, stated as a percentage of base salary, with the median rate for equivalent positions at the Peer Group companies. In 2015, the target short -term incentive opportunity for the Named Executives ranged from 40% to 80% of base salary, depending upon the Named Executive’s responsibilities (i.e., the greater the responsibility, the more pay at risk). The Company's Named Executives’ target incentive opportunities as a percent of base salary were near the Peer Group median at the time the last benchmarking review was conducted. As described more fully below, the actual amounts paid depend on the achievement of specified performance objectives and could range from 50% of the target award upon achievement of threshold performance to 150% of the target award upon achievement of exceptional performance.

99


Financial and Operating Performance Objectives-2015
The PEP performance targets and weighting are based on factors that are essential for the long-term success of the Company and are identical to the performance objectives used in its performance plan for other non-union employees. In 2015, the objectives were: (i) net income; (ii) O&M cost containment; and (iii) excellent operations and safe work environment. The Compensation Committee selected the goals and individual weightings for the 2015 PEP to ensure an appropriate focus on profitable growth and expense control, as well as operational and customer service excellence. This use of balanced financial and operational metrics encourages all employees to work toward common goals that are in the interests of UNS Energy’s various stakeholders.
The program design includes a 50% maximum payment cap if the Net Income goal does not achieve at least Threshold attainment. This ensures sufficient income to fund the program and reiterates the importance of the Net Income Goal. Finally, the Board of Directors has discretion to adjust any payout.
The financial and other metrics for the Company’s 2015 Short-Term Incentive Compensation program were:
Financial – 60%, Comprising of:
Net Income – 40%
O&M Cost Containment – 20%
Excellent Operations and Safe Work Environment – 40%
In developing the PEP performance targets, Company management compiles relevant data such as Company historic performance and industry benchmarks and makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee for a particular year, but the Compensation Committee ultimately determines the performance objectives that are adopted.
The 2015 financial performance objectives were:
 Threshold Target Exceptional
Net Income (in millions) results interpolated
$139.6
 $150.1
 $160.6
O&M Long-Term Increase final results interpolated
3.0% 2.0% 1.5%
The 2015 operational and safety performance objectives were:
 Threshold Target Exceptional
Excellent Operations     
Equivalent Availability Factor (“EAF”) Generation Reliability – Summer92.43% 93.42% ≥94.42%
System Average Interruption Duration Index (“SAIDI”) Transmission/Distribution Reliability78-90 57-77 < 57
Customer Satisfaction - Improve Residential Customer Satisfaction Score Measured by JD Power640 - 649 650 - 669 ≥670
Safe Work Environment     
OSHA Rate (Employee Safety Incident Rate)1.70 1.50 < 1.00
2015 PEP Results
Summary:
Overall, the 2015 results produced a total weighted performance for all goals of 113.2% of target performance, as summarized in Table A below. The Compensation Committee approved an overall PEP payout of 113.2% of target awards.

100


Table A: Summary of 2015 PEP Results
Goal
Weighting of
Goal (A)
 
Percentage of
Target Performance
Achieved (B) (1)
 
Payout Percentage
(A x B)
Net Income40% 108% 43.2%
Safe Work Environment10% 50% 5.0%
O&M Cost Containment20% 150% 30.0%
Excellent Operations30% Various 35.0%
 100%   113.2%
(1)
Additional details provided below.
Net Income Goal:
In 2015, the Company achieved $151.8 million of net income, which was above target performance (results are interpolated). Table B, below, reflects the net income goal, which ranged from $139.6 million (threshold) to $160.6 million (exceptional), and the corresponding payout levels, which ranged from 50% to 150% of the target award, as well as the actual net income achieved for 2015. Net income must have been more than $139.6 million to produce a payout. The achievement of $151.8 million in net income resulted in a payout level of 108.1% of the target amount for the Net Income performance objective.
Table B: Net Income
 Final Result: $151.8
(in millions)Range
 $139.6$141.7$143.8$145.9$148.0$150.1$152.2$154.3$156.4$158.5$160.6
Payout % of Target50%60%70%80%90%100%110%120%130%140%150%
 á    á    á
 Threshold   Target   Exceptional
     Actual $151.8    
O&M Cost Containment Goal:
Prior to 2015, the O&M cost containment goal focused on achieving a targeted current year O&M spending level. In 2015 the goal was changed to reflect a longer term view of O&M by focusing on results of the 2016 budget (set by management in mid-year 2015) as a percentage increase over the 2015 base O&M budget. The lower increase of year over year budget estimates represents better performance. This O&M goal is meant to trigger longer-term thinking on how the Company's leadership might structurally change its business and processes, using proven process improvement methods, to focus on moving the business forward while containing costs. In 2016, the program design will include a monitoring of performance to the established 2016 budget. Table C, below, reflects the O&M cost containment goal, which ranged from 3.0% increase (threshold) to 1.5% increase (exceptional), and the corresponding payout levels, which ranged from 50% to 150% of the target award (results are interpolated). In 2015 the Company achieved a 2016 O&M budget decrease of 0.5%, which was exceptional performance, and resulted in a payout level of 150% for that performance objective.
Table C: O & M Long Term Increase
 Final Result: 1.5%
(in millions)Range
 3.0%2.8%2.6%2.4%2.2%2.0%1.9%1.8%1.7%1.6%1.5%
Payout % of Target50%60%70%80%90%100%110%120%130%140%150%
 á    á    á
 Threshold   Target   Exceptional
          Actual (0.5)%
Excellent Operations Goals:
Equivalent Availability Factor (“EAF”): The reliability of the Company's plant performance during the peak summer demand season is critical to its customers and due to approved rate design, to financial performance; therefore, a Summer EAF goal is used in measuring the reliability of the Company's generation fleet.

101


System Average Interruption Duration Index (“SAIDI”): This reliability measure in the Company's Transmission and Distribution business area is a good outage duration performance measure, because it tracks the length or duration of outages across all customers, giving the Company a focus on reducing the outage time a customer experiences.
Customer Satisfaction: This reliability metric is measured by the JD Power Customer Satisfaction survey. Improving the Company's interactions with customers is critical to the outcome of this goal.
Safe Work Environment Goal:
Safety: The Company's safety measure tracks the OSHA Recordable Incident Rate, which is a good indicator of a company’s safety efforts. Continued focus on safety initiative components (leadership, employee involvement, and regulatory compliance) is a priority for the Company.
Table D, below, reflects the final achievement at the various levels of performance for the Excellent Operations and Safe Work Environment goals. According to the guidelines set by the Compensation Committee, the achievement of these goals yielded a result of 40% for this combination of performance objectives.
Table D: Excellent Operations/Safe Work Environment Goals
 Weight Actual Result Final Value Totals
Excellent Operations (30% Weighting)
       
Equivalent Availability Factor (“EAF”) Generation Reliability – Summer10% Exceptional 15%  
System Average Interruption Duration Index (“SAIDI”) Transmission/Distribution Reliability10% Target 10%  
Customer Satisfaction - Improve Residential Customer Satisfaction Score Measured by JD Power10% Target 10%  
Subtotal: Excellent Operations      35.0%
Safe Work Environment (10% Weighting)
       
OSHA Rate (Employee Safety Measure)10% Threshold 5%  
Subtotal: Safe Work Environment      5.0%
Total Percentage for Excellent Operations and Safe Work Environment      40.0%
The Company’s internal audit department verified that the reported results for the 2015 PEP goals were accurate and reported its findings to the Compensation Committee.
The amounts of the 2015 PEP awards paid to each of the Named Executives are listed in the Summary Compensation Table below.
Long-Term Incentive Compensation (Equity Based Awards)
UNS Energy believes that equity-based awards align the interests of executive officers with the interests of Fortis’ shareholders and fosters the growth and success of the business of the Company and Fortis in accordance with the vision of both the Company and Fortis. In addition, the vesting provisions applicable to the awards encourages a focus on long-term operating performance, linking compensation expense to the achievement of multi-year financial results and helping to retain executive officers.
In 2015, the Compensation Committee approved the adoption of a new long-term incentive plan under which certain key employees, including executive officers, may be granted long-term incentive awards of performance-based share units ("PSUs") and time-based restricted share units ("RSUs"). Executive officers receive a cash payment for each PSU and RSU that is payable and vested pursuant to the plan. The payment is based on the market price of one share of common stock of Fortis on the applicable payment or vesting date, which is then converted to U.S. dollars in accordance with the plan. All prior long-term incentive awards that predate the current plan were paid out in 2014 as a result of the acquisition of UNS by Fortis.
The long-term incentive (“LTI”) opportunity for each Named Executive is based on a percentage of salary. The 2015 LTI multiples are 150% for Mr. Hutchens, 100% for Mr. Larson, and 40% for Ms. Kissinger and Messrs. Hixon and Grant. The dollar values of the Named Executives’ long-term incentives are generally in the 25th percentile to median range of the Peer Group. Under the design of the compensation plan for 2015, two-thirds of the award opportunity was granted as performance

102


share units and one-third was to be granted as restricted share units that vest 100% on the third anniversary of grant to support retention objectives as well as succession planning initiatives.
2015 Performance Share Units
Performance share unit awards granted in 2015 will be distributed, along with dividend equivalents (to the extent that the performance share units become earned and vested), at the end of the three-year payment criteria period ending in 2017, based on the following equally-weighted payment criteria:
TSR Payment Criteria
The first financial performance criteria is the TSR of Fortis stock relative to the TSR of a predefined peer group (the "LTI Peer Group") shown below for the same period.
TSR Percentile RankPayout as a Percent of Target Award
75th percentile and above
75.0%
50th percentile
50.0%
30th percentile
25.0%
Below 30th percentile
0.0%
Intermediate payouts determined by interpolation.
LTI Peer Group
AGL ResourcesNiSource Inc.
Alliant EnergyNortheast Utilities
Ameren Corp.OGE Energy Corp.
Atmos Energy Corp.Pinnacle West Capital Corp.
Canadian Utilities, Ltd.PPL Corp.
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.Public Svc Enterprise Group
CMS Energy Corp.SCANA Corp.
DTE Energy Co.Sempra Energy
Emera, Inc.TECO Energy Inc.
Great Plains EnergyUGI Corp.
LTI Peer GroupWestar Energy, Inc.
MDU Resources Group Inc.Wisconsin Energy Corp.
New Jersey Resources, Corp.Xcel Energy Inc.
Cumulative Net Income Payment Criteria
The second financial payment criteria is cumulative net income (CNI) determined in accordance with GAAP and compared to a target cumulative net income of UNS Energy based on an assessment of external and management forecasts for the same period.
Degree of Performance Attainment (in millions)
Three-Year Cumulative
Net Income
 
Payout as a Percent of Target
Award Earned
Exceptional$527
 75.0%
Target457
 50.0%
Threshold387
 25.0%
Less than Threshold< 387
 0.0%
Intermediate payouts determined by interpolation.
Equity Grant Timing and Practice
During the first quarter following the close of a fiscal year, the Compensation Committee approves and grants the long-term incentive awards for that year, including the type of equity to be granted, as well as the size of the awards for Named

103


Executives. In determining the type and aggregate size of awards to be provided, as well as the performance metrics that apply, the Compensation Committee considers the strategic goals of the Company and Fortis, trends in corporate governance, accounting impact, tax deductibility, cash flow considerations, and the impact on Fortis's earnings per share. The timing of awards was not coordinated with the release of material non-public information.
CLAWBACK PROVISION FOR VARIABLE COMPENSATION
Consistent with current “best practices,” short- and long-term incentive compensation awards are subject to clawback provisions. The clawback provision may apply to the income derived from the financial component of the PEP and the performance share units in the event of a restatement of financial results that, in the view of the Compensation Committee, results from fraud or intentional misconduct. The Compensation Committee has discretion to determine to whom the clawback will apply and the amount subject to clawback, if such repayment is determined to be necessary.
ELEMENTS OF POST EMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
Termination and Change in Control
Prior to the Company's acquisition by Fortis, the Compensation Committee had determined that it was in the Company’s and shareholders’ best interest to enter into change in control agreements with its executive officers in order to attract highly qualified executives and to retain those executives through any future challenges that might arise. All of these agreements were designed to be consistent with contemporary “best practices,” such as double trigger severance payments and equity vesting and no excise tax gross-ups. These various agreements are still in effect and are discussed in detail in Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control, below.
Generally speaking, the Company does not enter into or extend employment agreements with current officers and instead only uses employment agreements when needed in recruiting a new officer. The Company currently has no employment agreements in place.
UNS Energy also maintains a severance pay plan for all of the Company’s non-union employees, including its Named Executives, which continues the Company’s historical practice of providing severance pay in certain termination situations without a change in control and provides consistency in that practice.
Retirement and Other Benefits
The Company offers retirement and other core benefits to its employees, including the Named Executives, in order to provide them with a reasonable level of financial support in the event of illness or injury and to enhance productivity and job satisfaction. The basic retirement and other core benefits are the same for all employees and Named Executives and include medical and dental coverage, disability insurance and life insurance. In addition, the TEP 401(k) Plan (the “401(k) Plan”) and the TEP Salaried Employees Retirement Plan (the “Retirement Plan”) provide a reasonable level of retirement income reflecting employees’ careers with the Company. All employees, including Named Executives, participate in these plans; the cost of these benefits (other than the Retirement Plan) is partially borne by the employee, including each Named Executive. In addition, the Company provides all of its officers with an optional executive physical annually.
In addition to the basic retirement plans, described above, to the extent that any executive officer’s retirement benefit exceeds Internal Revenue Code (Code) limits for amounts that can be paid through a qualified plan, the Company also offers non-qualified retirement plans, including the TEP Excess Benefit Plan (Excess Benefit Plan) and the Management and Directors Deferred Compensation Plan (DCP). These plans provide only the difference between the calculated benefits and Code limits. These benefits are not tied to any formal individual or Company performance criteria but are intended to enhance the attraction and retention value of the executive officer compensation program and are consistent with similar competitive compensation benefits made available to executives in the industry. UNS Energy believes the DCP and the Excess Benefit Plan assist with the Company’s attraction and retention objectives. The DCP provides an industry-competitive and tax-efficient benefit to the executive officers. The DCP is not funded by the Company; DCP participants are unsecured creditors of the Company with respect to their DCP plan accounts. The Excess Benefit Plan provides the retirement benefits to executive officers that would have been provided under the Retirement Plan if the Code limitations did not apply. For more information on retirement and certain related benefits, see Pension Benefits and Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation, below.
ROLE OF EXECUTIVES IN ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION
Certain executive officers, including the CEO, the CFO, the General Counsel and the Vice President of Customer and Human Resources, routinely attend regular sessions of Compensation Committee meetings; however, they are excused for executive sessions when their compensation is discussed and/or determined. The CEO makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee with respect to changes in compensation for senior executive officer positions (other than the CEO) and payouts

104


under the annual incentive plan. The CEO also makes suggestions to the Compensation Committee regarding the design of incentive plans and other programs in which senior management participates.
The CFO provides information regarding short-term and long-term compensation targets, as well as updates on the progress of short- and long-term objectives. Additional Company personnel with expertise in and responsibility for compensation and benefits provide information regarding executive officer and director compensation, including cash compensation, equity awards, pensions, deferred compensation and other related information.
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis sectionInformation required by Item 402(b) of SEC Regulation S-K and contained in this annual report. Based on such review and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended11 is omitted pursuant to the Board of Directors of TEP that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section be included in TEP’s annual report onGeneral Instruction I(2)(c) for Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,
THE HUMAN RESOURCES AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF UNS ENERGY CORPORATION
Louise L. Francesconi, Chair
Lawrence J. Aldrich
Robert A. Elliott
Barry Perry



105


SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE – 2015 (1)
The following table sets forth summary compensation information for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2014, and 2015 for the Company’s Named Executives:
Name and Principal PositionYear Salary 
Share Awards(2)
 
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation(3)
 
Change in Pension Value and Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Earnings(4)
 
All Other Compensation(5)(6)
 Total
David G. Hutchens
President and Chief Executive Officer
2015 446,942
 632,590
 432,815
 393,142
 9,647
 1,915,136
2014 397,962
 417,359
 377,827
 555,358
 2,529,306
 4,277,812
2013 306,482
 432,998
 198,513
 105,379
 14,209
 1,057,580
Kevin P. Larson
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
2015 297,995
 280,509
 169,081
 
 9,647
 757,232
2014 289,922
 286,845
 158,639
 259,605
 4,122,921
 5,117,932
2013 279,435
 327,989
 142,107
 46,725
 12,574
 808,831
Todd C. Hixon
Vice President and General Counsel
2015 231,135
 85,736
 111,642
 32,676
 9,647
 470,836
2014 226,742
 86,054
 96,072
 242,704
 460,900
 1,112,472
Karen G. Kissinger
Vice President and Chief
Compliance Officer
2015 221,580
 83,223
 100,316
 36,250
 9,647
 451,016
2014 219,094
 86,054
 95,088
 325,958
 2,272,033
 2,998,227
2013 216,627
 252,798
 107,659
 
 10,147
 587,230
Kentton C. Grant
Vice President and
Treasurer
2015 212,349
 78,884
 100,316
 87,403
 7,645
 486,597
(1)
The amounts included in the Summary Compensation Table represent only the amounts paid by UNS for services to TEP and its subsidiaries and do not include amounts paid by UNS for services to others. For 2015 services, 80.90% of the amounts paid by UNS were allocable to services to TEP and its subsidiaries. For 2014 services, 80.46% of the amounts paid by UNS were allocable to services to TEP and its subsidiaries. For 2013 services, 79.7% of the amounts paid by UNS were allocable to services to TEP and its subsidiaries.
(2)
The amounts included in the Share Awards column reflect 80.90% of the grant date fair value calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 for restricted share units and performance share units granted in each of the years reported, excluding the effect of forfeitures. Half of the performance share unit awards had a grant date fair value, based on a Monte Carlo simulation, of $36.28 per share. These awards are based on Fortis's Shareholder Return relative to the Peer Group TSR for the three year performance period ended December 31, 2017. The remaining half had a grant date fair value, based on the grant date closing price, of $33.47 per share based on cumulative net income for the performance period ended December 31, 2017. The restricted share units had a grant date fair value, based on the grant date closing price, of $33.47 per share. The share prices listed in this footnote are converted from Canadian Dollars (CAD) based on the Wall Street Journal currency exchange rate on the grant date (12/31/14) as required in the Share Unit Plan document which was 1.1621. The restricted share units vest on the third anniversary of grant over the vesting period. In the case of performance share units, the amounts in the column reflect the grant date fair value assuming the probable outcome of the performance conditions. The 2015 amounts attributable to Restricted Share Units and Performance Share Units are shown on the following table:
 Restricted Share Units Performance Share Units Total
David G. Hutchens224,979
 407,611
 632,590
Kevin P. Larson99,762
 180,747
 280,509
Todd C. Hixon30,492
 55,244
 85,736
Karen G. Kissinger29,598
 53,625
 83,223
Kentton C. Grant28,055
 50,829
 78,884
10-K.

For the 2015 performance share grant, if the maximum level of performance is achieved and using [the fair market value of a share of Company common stock on the grant date ($36.28)], then the value of the payouts would be: $703,283 for David G. Hutchens, $311,855 for Kevin P. Larson, $95,317 for Todd C. Hixon, $92,524 for Karen G. Kissinger, and $87,699 for Kentton C. Grant.



106


(3)
The 2015 PEP awards included in this column were paid in the first quarter of 2016 to each of the Named Executives.
(4)
Any increase in the present value of the accrued benefit in the Retirement Plan and Excess Benefit Plan is reported in this column. All named executives experienced an increase in the present value of their respective accrued pension benefits during 2015. The present value of accumulated benefits payable is reflected in Pension Benefits, below. UNS Energy does not pay “above market” interest on non-qualified deferred compensation; therefore, this column reflects change in pension value only. See Non-qualified Deferred Compensation, below.
(5)
The amounts in the All Other Compensation for 2015 column contain only Qualified 401 (k) Plan Matching Contributions.
(6)
The amounts in the All Other Compensation column for 2014 include payments in exchange for stock awards canceled in connection with the acquisition of UNS Energy by Fortis in 2014.
GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS – 2015
The following table sets forth information regarding plan-based awards by UNS to the Company’s Named Executives in 2015 on account of services to TEP and its subsidiaries. As described above, 80.90% of the amount paid by UNS on account of services in 2015 is allocable to services to TEP and its subsidiaries. The compensation plans under which the grants in the following table were made are generally described in Compensation Discussion and Analysis, above and include the PEP, which provides for non-equity (cash) performance awards, and the 2015 Share Unit Plan, which provides for equity-based performance awards including restricted share units and performance share units.
 Grant Date 
Estimated Possible Payouts 
Under Non-Equity
 Incentive Plan Awards(1)
 
Estimated Future Payouts Under
Equity Incentive Plan Awards (#) (2)
 
All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (#) (3)
 
Grant
Date
Fair
Value
of
Stock
and
Option
Awards(4)
Name  Threshold Target Maximum Threshold Target Maximum    
DAVID H. HUTCHENS                
PEP1/1/2015 $179,986
 $359,973
 $539,959
          
Performance Share Units1/1/2015       6,721
 13,442
 20,164
   $407,611
Restricted Share Units1/1/2015             6,721
 224,979
KEVIN P. LARSON                
PEP1/1/2015 74,837
 149,675
 224,512
          
Performance Share Units1/1/2015       2,980
 5,961
 8,941
   180,747
Restricted Share Units1/1/2015             2,980
 99,762
TODD C. HIXON                
PEP1/1/2015 45,766
 91,531
 137,297
          
Performance Share Units1/1/2015       911
 1,822
 2,733
   55,244
Restricted Share Units1/1/2015             911
 30,492
KAREN G. KISSINGER                
PEP1/1/2015 44,417
 88,835
 133,253
          
Performance Share Units1/1/2015       884
 1,768
 2,653
   53,625
Restricted Share Units1/1/2015             884
 29,598
KENTTON C. GRANT                
PEP1/1/2015 43,686
 87,372
 131,058
          
Performance Share Units1/1/2015       838
 1,676
 2,514
   50,829
Restricted Share Units1/1/2015             838
 28,055
(1)
The amounts shown in this column reflect the range of payouts (50%-150% of the target award) for 2015 performance under the PEP, as described in Compensation Discussion and Analysis - Short-Term Incentive Compensation, above. These amounts are based on the

107


individual’s current salary and position. The amount of cash incentive actually paid under the PEP for 2015 is reflected in the Summary Compensation Table above.
(2)
The amounts shown in this column reflect the range (50%-150% of the target award) of payouts in the form of performance share units targeted for 2015-2017 performance under the 2015 Share Unit Plan for long-term incentive compensation, as described in the “Long-Term Incentive Compensation” section of the CD&A, above.
The target 2015 LTI multiples, as a percentage of base salary, are 150% for Mr. Hutchens, 100% for Mr. Larson, and 40% each for Ms. Kissinger and for Messrs. Hixon and Grant. Accordingly, each Named Executive received an LTIP target award of performance share units and restricted share units the total value of which was equal to the executive’s base salary multiplied by the applicable multiple (e.g., 100% for CFO), divided by the grant date fair market value of a share of Fortis's common stock ($33.47), rounded down to the nearest 1 share. The share prices listed in this footnote are converted from Canadian Dollars (CAD) based on the Wall Street Journal currency exchange rate on the grant date (12/31/14) as required in the Share Unit Plan document which was 1.1621. For example, the CFO's 2015 base salary attributable to TEP (and LTIP target award) was $299,349, divided by $33.47, and rounded down to the nearest 1 share, resulted in an LTIP target award of 5,961 performance share units and 2,980 restricted share units.
The 2015 awards of performance share units will be paid in cash at the end of the performance period depending on the Company’s performance relative to the two performance criteria described in Compensation Discussion and Analysis, above. The two performance criteria operate independently; a Named Executive may receive a payment on account of one of the criteria without regard to performance on the other criteria.
(3)
The amounts shown in this column represent the number of time-based restricted share units that were granted in 2015 under the 2015 Share Unit Plan and will be paid in cash at the end of the vesting period.
(4)
The amounts included in this column reflect 80.90% of the grant date fair value calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 for restricted share units and performance share units granted in each of the years reported, excluding the effect of forfeitures. Half of the performance share unit awards had a grant date fair value, based on a Monte Carlo simulation, of $36.28 per share. These awards are based on Fortis's Shareholder Return relative to the Peer Group TSR for the three year performance period ended December 31, 2017. The remaining half had a grant date fair value, based on the grant date closing price, of $33.47 per share based on cumulative net income for the performance period ended December 31, 2017. The restricted share units had a grant date fair value, based on the grant date closing price, of $33.47 per share. The share prices listed in this footnote are converted from Canadian Dollars (CAD) based on the Wall Street Journal currency exchange rate on the grant date (12/31/14) as required in the Share Unit Plan document which was 1.1621. The restricted share units vest on the third anniversary of grant over the vesting period. In the case of performance share units, the amounts in the column reflect the grant date fair value assuming the probable outcome of the performance conditions. For more information about these awards, please refer to footnote 1 of the Summary Compensation Table and Compensation Discussion and Analysis, above.
OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR END - 2015
 Stock Based Awards
Grant Date 
Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested(1)
(#)
 
Market Value of Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested (2)
($)
 
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (3)
(#)
 
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (4)
($)
David G. Hutchens1/1/2015 6,721
 $218,176 13,442
 $436,352
Kevin P. Larson1/1/2015 2,980
 96,745
 5,961
 193,490
Todd C. Hixon1/1/2015 911
 29,570
 1,822
 59,140
Karen G. Kissinger1/1/2015 884
 28,703
 1,768
 57,406
Kentton C. Grant1/1/2015 838
 27,206
 1,676
 54,413
(1)
Number of time-based restricted share units that remain unvested as of December 31, 2015. Restricted share units vest on the third anniversary of the grant date, subject to continued service with the Company through that date.
(2)
The market value of restricted share units and performance share units was calculated by multiplying the number of restricted share units outstanding or the number of performance share units (as determined in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, rules and footnote 5 below), as applicable, by $32.46 which was the share price as of 12/31/15. The share prices listed in this footnote are converted from Canadian Dollars (CAD) based on the Wall Street Journal currency exchange rate on the grant date (12/31/14) as required in the Share Unit Plan document which was 1.1621.
(3)
Performance share units vest, if at all, after three years based on the achievement of performance of the cumulative goals over the applicable three-year period. The performance goals are described in the CD&A.

108


(4)
The amounts for the 2015 performance share unit awards are shown at the target level based on the results for the first year of the 2015-2017 performance period.
OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED
There were no stock options exercised or stock or share awards vested during the year ended December 31, 2015.
PENSION BENEFITS
The following table shows 80.90% of the present value of accumulated benefits payable to each of the Named Executives, including the number of years of service credited to each such Named Executive, under each of the Retirement Plan and the Excess Benefit Plan determined using interest rate and mortality rate assumptions used in the Company’s financial statements. See Note 8 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K and the Retirement and Other Benefits, above for information regarding the Retirement Plan and the Excess Benefit Plan.
 Plan Name 
Number of Years
Credited Service
 
Present Value of
Accumulated Benefit
 
Payments During Last
Fiscal Year
David G. Hutchens
Tucson Electric Power
Salaried Employees
Retirement Plan(1)(3)
 20.50 $763,775
 
 
Tucson Electric Power
Excess Benefit Plan(2)(3)
 20.50 1,192,238
 
Kevin P. Larson
Tucson Electric Power
Salaried Employees
Retirement Plan(1)(3)
 30.83 1,272,805
 
 
Tucson Electric Power
Excess Benefit Plan(2)(3)
 30.83 1,366,778
 
Karen G. Kissinger
Tucson Electric Power
Salaried Employees
Retirement Plan(1)(3)
 25 1,283,649
 
 
Tucson Electric Power
Excess Benefit Plan(2)(3)
 25 662,945
 
Todd C. Hixon
Tucson Electric Power
Salaried Employees
Retirement Plan(1)(3)
 17.58 495,203
 
 
Tucson Electric Power
Excess Benefit Plan(2)(3)
 17.58 194,627
 
Kentton C. Grant
Tucson Electric Power
Salaried Employees
Retirement Plan(1)(3)
 20.08 725,334
 
 
Tucson Electric Power
Excess Benefit Plan(2)(3)
 20.08 293,561
 
(1)
The Retirement Plan is intended to meet the requirements of a qualified benefit plan for Code purposes and is funded by the Company and made available to all eligible employees. The Retirement Plan provides an annual income upon retirement based on the following formula:
1.6% x years of service (up to 25 years) x final average pay
Final average pay is calculated as the average of basic monthly earnings on the first of the month following the employee’s birthday during the five consecutive plan years in which basic monthly earnings were the highest, within the last 15 plan years before retirement. Basic monthly earnings means the monthly base salary prior to any reduction for contributions to a Code section 401(k) plan, but excluding overtime pay, bonuses or other compensation. Years of service are based on years and months of employment. A Retirement Plan participant vests in his or her retirement benefit after five years of service. The maximum benefit available under the Retirement Plan is an annual income of 40% of final average pay (as defined above). Plan compensation for purposes of determining final average pay is limited by compensation limits under Code Section 401(a)(17). For 2015, the limit was $265,000 in annual income. Employees are eligible to retire early with an unreduced pension benefit if (i) the combination of their age and years of service equals or exceeds 85, or (ii) they are age 62 and have completed 10 years of service. Employees are also eligible for early retirement with a reduced pension benefit at age 55 with at least 10 years of service. The reduction at age 55 with 10 years of service is 42.6% and continues to be reduced at a lesser amount up to age 62, at which point there is no

109


reduction. All optional forms of the benefit are actuarially equivalent. Messrs. Larson and Grant and Ms. Kissinger are currently eligible for early retirement.
(2)
The Retirement Plan is subject to Code limitations on the amount of compensation that can be taken into account and on the amount of benefits that can be provided. The Excess Benefit Plan provides the retirement benefits to executive officers that would have been provided under the Retirement Plan if the Code limitations did not apply. The Excess Benefit Plan retirement benefit is calculated generally using the same pension formula as the Retirement Plan formula but with some modifications. Compensation for purposes of the Excess Benefit Plan is determined without regard to Code limits on compensation and by including voluntary salary reductions to the DCP and any annual incentive payment received under the PEP. The retirement benefit payable from the Excess Benefit Plan is reduced by the benefit payable to that person from the Retirement Plan. Vesting occurs after five years of service. Benefits are payable in a lump sum or annuity, at the participant’s election. Messrs. Larson and Grant and Ms. Kissinger are currently eligible for early retirement.
(3)
In preparing the aggregate increase in actuarial value of the above plans, the following assumptions and methods were used:
Measurements were made as of Tucson Electric Power Company's ASC 715 measurement date of December 31, 2015.
December 31, 2015 calculations were done using the spot rates underlying the Rate:Link 60-90 Yield Curve as of December 31, 2015 and RP-2014 mortality table, projecting mortality generationally at Scale MP-2015, with the following adjustments:
The RP-2014 mortality table was adjusted to back out MP-2014 experience to 2006, then add back in MP-2015 through 2015.
The MP-2015 projection scale was adjusted so that the ultimate rate of 1% at age 85 was reduced to 0.75%.
The MP-2015 projection scale was further adjusted to reduce the convergence period to 15 years, rather than 20.
No pre-retirement mortality was assumed. For measurements at December 31, 2014, a discount rate of 4.10% and RP-2000 Female with generational projection using scale BB Female for females and RP-2000 Male with generational projection using scale BB Male for males, and both with no pre-retirement mortality were used for the Salaried and Excess Plans. This discount rate reflects rates as of December 31, 2015.
All participants were assumed to elect a 10 year Certain and Life benefit at the earliest age at which they are projected to be eligible for unreduced benefits.
NON-QUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION
UNS Energy sponsors the DCP for directors, executive officers and certain other employees of UNS Energy. Under the DCP, employee participants are allowed to defer on a pre-tax basis up to 100% of base salary and cash bonuses, and non-employee director participants are allowed to defer up to 100% of their cash compensation. The deferred amounts are valued daily as if invested in one or more of a number of investment funds, including UNS Energy share units, each of which may appreciate or depreciate in value over time. The choice of investment funds is determined by the individual participant. The amounts shown in the table below represent 80.90% of the total amounts, to reflect the portion allocable to TEP and its subsidiaries.
 
Executive
Contributions
in Last Fiscal
Year (1)
 
Aggregate
Earnings in
Last Fiscal
Year (2)
 
Aggregate
Withdrawals/
Distributions
 
Aggregate
Balance at
Last Fiscal
Year End (3)
David G. Hutchens
 
 
 
Kevin P. Larson
 8
 
 54,372
Todd C. Hixon
 
 
 
Karen G. Kissinger
 19
 
 122,451
Kentton C. Grant42,470
 11
 
 83,181
(1)
Represents contributions to the DCP by the Named Executives during the year. The amounts shown, if any, are included in the salary column of the Summary Compensation Table, above.

110


(2)
Represents the total market based earnings (losses) for the year on all deferred compensation under the DCP based on the investment returns associated with the investment choices made by the Named Executive. Amounts in this column are not included in the Summary Compensation Table.
(3)
The aggregate balance includes compensation that was previously earned and reported in the Summary Compensation Table for 2013 and 2014 (if any) as follows: Mr. Larson—$8,817 and Ms. Kissinger—$1,287. Benefits under the plan will be distributed on the first to occur of the following events: separation from service, disability or death, in the form of either a lump sum or installment payments. The following table shows the deemed investment options available under the DCP and the annual rate of return for the calendar year ended December 31, 2015.
Name of Fund Rate of Return Name of Fund Rate of Return
Fidelity Retirement Money Market 0.02% Fidelity Spartan Us Equity Index 1.35%
Fidelity Intermediate Bond 0.68% Fidelity Growth Company 7.94%
Janus Flexible Bond 0.09% Fidelity Low Price Stock (0.45)%
Fidelity Asset Manager (0.44)% Janus Worldwide (2.30)%
Fidelity Equity-Income (3.41)% T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth 11.15%
Fidelity Managed Income 1.17% Fidelity Diversified International K 3.24%
RS Value Y (5.99)% Franklin Utilities A (7.38)%
American Beacon Small Cap Value Instl (5.04)% Allianz NFJ International Value Instl (13.15)%
Fidelity Small Cap Stock 2.40%    
POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROL
In order to ensure that the Company is able to retain its Named Executives, the Compensation Committee has determined that it is in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders to enter into change in control agreements with those Named Executives, as well as to maintain a severance pay plan for all of the Company’s non-union employees, including the Named Executives.
Change in Control Agreements
Each of our current executive officers, including our named executive officers who are currently employed by the Company, is party to a change in control agreement with UNS Energy entered into prior to the acquisition by Fortis. Under the change in control agreements, the executive officer will be entitled to receive change in control benefits if he or she incurs a separation from service due to the Company’s termination of his or her employment without “Cause” or due to the executive officer’s termination of employment with the Company for “Good Reason” during the six-month period prior to the occurrence of a Change in Control and if the executive officer’s separation from service is effected in contemplation of such Change in Control. The executive officer also will be entitled to receive these benefits if he or she incurs a separation from service due to the Company’s termination of his or her employment without Cause or due to the executive officer’s termination of employment for Good Reason during the 24-month period following the occurrence of a Change in Control.
A Change in Control is defined as: (i) the acquisition of beneficial ownership of 40% of the common stock of UNS Energy; (ii) certain changes in the Board; (iii) the closing of certain mergers or consolidations; or (iv) certain transfers of the assets of UNS Energy. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Change in Control will not be deemed to have occurred until: any required regulatory approval, including any final non-appealable regulatory order, has been obtained; and the transaction that would otherwise be considered a Change in Control closes.
A Change in Control with UNS Energy occurred on August 15, 2014, the time of the acquisition of UNS Energy by Fortis. The protection period ends on August 13, 2016. Since there was a Change in Control, if a qualifying separation occurs on or before August 13, 2016, then the executive officer will be entitled to severance benefits in the form of: (i) a single lump sum payment in an amount equal to two (for Mr. Hutchens), one and one-half (for Mr. Larson) or one (for Ms. Kissinger and Messrs. Hixon and Grant) times the greater of (a) the executive officer’s annualized base salary as of the date of the executive officer’s separation from service, or (b) the executive officer’s annualized base salary in effect immediately prior to any material diminution in the executive officer’s base salary following execution of the change in control agreement; (ii) a single lump sum cash payment in an amount equal to two (for Mr. Hutchens), one and one-half (for Mr. Larson) or one (for Ms. Kissinger and Messrs. Hixon and Grant) times the average payment to which the executive officer was entitled pursuant to the short-term incentive compensation plan for the three calendar years immediately preceding the calendar year in which the executive officer’s separation from service occurs or, if that data is not available, the executive officer’s target payment under the short-term incentive compensation plan; (iii) a single lump sum cash payment in an amount equal to a prorated portion of the actual payment to which the executive officer would have been entitled under the short-term incentive compensation plan for the

111


calendar year in which the executive officer’s separation from service occurs; and (iv) a single lump sum cash payment in the amount of the payment, if any, to which the executive officer is entitled under the short-term incentive compensation plan (based on the executive officer’s actual performance) for the year prior to the year in which the executive officer’s separation from service occurs, to the extent not already paid to the executive officer. “Good reason” is defined under these agreements to mean: (i) a material, adverse diminution in the executive officer’s authority, duties or responsibilities; (ii) a material change in the geographic location at which the executive officer must primarily perform services; (iii) a material diminution in the executive officer’s base salary provided that such diminution is not a result of a generally applicable reduction in the base salary of all officers of the Company in an amount that does not exceed 10%; or (iv) any action or inaction that constitutes a material breach of the agreement by the Company. “Cause” is defined under these agreements to mean: (i) the willful failure of the executive officer to perform any of the executive officer’s duties for the Company which continues after the Company has given the executive written notice describing the failure and an opportunity to cure the failure; (ii) a material violation of Company policy; (iii) any act of fraud or dishonesty; (iv) the executive officer’s gross misconduct in the performance of the executive officer’s duties that results in material economic harm to the Company; (v) the executive officer’s conviction of, or plea of guilty or no contest, to a felony; or (vi) the executive officer’s material breach of the executive officer’s employment agreement with the Company, if any.
The executive officer would also be entitled to continue to participate in TEP’s health, life, disability or other insurance benefit plans for a period expiring on the earlier of (a) 24 months (for Mr. Hutchens), 18 months (for Mr. Larson), or 12 months (for Ms. Kissinger and Messrs. Hixon and Grant) following the executive officer’s separation from service, or in some cases for the respective period following the Change in Control event, or (b) the day on which the executive officer becomes eligible to receive any substantially similar benefits, on a benefit-by-benefit basis, under any plan or program of any successor employer. In the event the executive officer elected a high deductible health care plan pursuant to which TEP has agreed to make contributions to the executive officer’s health savings account, then TEP will pay to the executive officer a single lump sum cash payment in an amount equal to the contributions that TEP would have made to the executive officer’s health savings account during the respective benefit continuation period described above had the executive officer not incurred the separation from service.
The Change in Control Agreements provide that the executive officer shall be employed by UNS Energy or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates, in a position comparable to the current position, with base compensation and benefits at least equal to the then-current compensation and benefits, for an employment period of two years after a Change in Control (subject to earlier termination for cause or the executive officer’s termination without good reason).
The Change in Control Agreements also contain a number of material conditions or obligations applicable to the receipt of payments or benefits, which require the executive officer to: (i) continue to abide by the terms and provisions of the Company’s policies that protect various forms of confidential information and intellectual property; (ii) refrain from consulting with, engaging in or acting as an advisor to another company about business that competes with the Company; (iii) refrain from soliciting business for or in connection with any competing business (a) from any individual or entity that obtained products or services from the Company at any time during the executive officer’s employment with the Company or (b) from any individual or entity that was solicited by the executive officer on behalf of the Company; and (iv) refrain from soliciting employees of the Company who would have the skills and knowledge necessary to enable or assist efforts by the executive officer to engage in a competing business. Item (i) referred to in this paragraph contains no durational limit, nor do the Change in Control Agreements include any provision providing for waiver of a breach of item (i). Items (ii) through (iv) referred to in this paragraph are effective for a period of one year following the date of the executive officer’s termination. Breach of items (ii) through (iv) is waived if the Company materially defaults on any of its obligations under the Change in Control Agreements.
No excise tax gross-ups are provided. Rather, severance payments to executives are cut back to the safe harbor limit if the reduction results in the executive receiving a greater after-tax benefit than if the excise tax were paid by the executive on the excess parachute payments; otherwise, all payments would be paid and the executive would pay the excise tax.
All long-term incentive awards contain a double trigger vesting provision, which provides for accelerated vesting only if outstanding awards are not assumed by an acquirer and also provide for accelerated vesting upon a qualifying termination following a Change in Control. This double trigger vesting provision applies to future awards and/or if the Named Executive is terminated without cause within 24 months of a Change in Control. The double trigger, which is viewed as a corporate governance “best practice,” ensures that the Named Executives do not receive accelerated benefits unless they are adversely affected by the Change in Control.
On May 2, 2014, Mr. Hutchens was appointed CEO of UNS Energy and TEP in addition to his duties as President and Chief Operating Officer of each company. Incident to the appointment, Mr. Hutchens's Change in Control agreement was modified to increase the benefits to which he will be entitled if his employment is terminated by UNS Energy without cause or by Mr.

112


Hutchens with good reason following a change in control and to provide that he was not entitled to terminate employment and receive the benefits provided by his Change in Control Agreement solely for the reason that he would no longer be CEO of a publicly traded company as a result of the acquisition of UNS Energy by Fortis.
On November 13, 2014, UNS Energy and Mr. Larson entered into a retention bonus agreement, the terms of which were approved by the UNS Energy Human Resources and Governance Committee. The retention bonus agreement amends Mr. Larson's change in control agreement to provide that changes in Mr. Larson's responsibilities that occurred as a result of the acquisition of UNS Energy by Fortis, or that may occur for succession purposes based on a future mutually-agreed transition process, shall not constitute good reason for Mr. Larson to terminate his employment and receive benefits under the change in control agreement.
Severance Pay Plan
In addition, the Company has a severance pay plan (Severance Plan) for all of the Company’s non-union employees, including its Named Executives, which provides for severance benefits in the event of a qualifying termination, which means a termination without cause without a change in control. Cause for termination under the Severance Plan means: (i) the willful failure of the employee to perform any of the employee’s duties for the employer which continues after the employer has given the participant written notice describing the failure and an opportunity to cure the failure; (ii) a material violation of Company policy; (iii) any act of fraud or dishonesty; (iv) willful failure to report to work for three days or to report to work on the agreed-upon date after a scheduled leave; or (v) willfully engaging in conduct that is demonstrably and materially injurious to the Company or any affiliate, monetarily or otherwise, including acts of fraud, misappropriation, violence or embezzlement for personal gain at the expense of the Company or any affiliate, conviction of (or plea of guilty or no contest or its equivalent to) a felony, or a misdemeanor involving immoral acts.
In the event of a qualifying termination, the Named Executive would be entitled to: (i) a cash severance payment equal to a multiple of base salary (two times for Mr. Hutchens, one and one-half times for Mr. Larson, and one time for Ms. Kissinger and Messrs. Hixon and Grant; (ii) continued subsidy of the premiums for COBRA medical, dental and vision coverage at the same rate as that paid by the Company prior to the separation from service for a period of the lesser of (a) 12 months, or (b) the date when the Named Executive becomes eligible for comparable benefits offered by a subsequent employer; and (iii) a portion of the amount to which the Named Executive would have been entitled under the Company’s PEP or any successor plan, based on the executive’s target payment for the year in which the executive’s separation from service occurs, had the Named Executive not incurred a separation from service. Receipt of benefits under the Severance Plan is contingent upon execution of a release of claims against the Company and subject to compliance with restrictive covenants, including perpetual confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions, and non-compete and non-solicitation requirements effective for the applicable severance period (two years for Mr. Hutchens, one and one-half years for Mr. Larson, and one year for Ms. Kissinger and Messrs. Hixon and Grant). Duplication of benefits provided under the Severance Plan is not permitted, and benefits payable under the Severance Plan cease in the event the Named Executive becomes eligible for change in control severance benefits or if the Named Executive has an employment agreement that provides for severance benefits.
In the event a Named Executive becomes eligible to receive severance benefits under the Severance Plan and has elected a health care option pursuant to which the Company has agreed to make pre-tax contributions to the Named Executive’s Health Savings Account, then the Company will pay the Named Executive an amount equal to the contributions the Company would have made to the Named Executive’s health savings account during the twelve-month period immediately following the Named Executive’s separation from service, plus a tax allowance in an amount equal to the federal, state and local taxes imposed on the Named Executive with respect to such contributions and with respect to the tax allowance. While as a general matter the Company does not provide tax gross-ups for severance arrangements or other benefits, it was deemed appropriate in this very limited circumstance because: (i) this particular type of benefit would be provided pre-tax, if the individual were still employed; (ii) the amounts in question are exceptionally small; and (iii) this treatment is available to all unclassified employees, not just the Named Executives, who become entitled to severance benefits under the Severance Plan and participate in the type of health care option described in the paragraph above.
Other than the agreements described above, UNS Energy has not entered into any severance agreements or employment agreements with any Named Executives.

113


The following table and summary set forth potential payments payable to the Named Executives upon termination of employment or a Change in Control assuming their employment was terminated on December 31, 2015.
 
If Retirement or
Voluntary
Termination
Occurs (1)
 
If “Change In 
Control” and Qualifying
Termination Occurs(2)
 
If Death or
Disability
Occurs(3)
 
If “Non-
Change In
Control”
Termination
Occurs(4)
David G. Hutchens$
 $2,428,415
 $
 $2,428,415
Kevin P. Larson
 1,108,825
 
 1,108,825
Todd C. Hixon
 495,409
 
 430,778
Karen G. Kissinger
 512,354
 
 512,354
Kentton C. Grant  475,837
   475,837
(1)
In the event of retirement or voluntary termination, each of the Named Executives would be entitled to receive vested and accrued benefits payable from the Retirement Plan and the Excess Benefit Plan, but no form or amount of any such payment would be increased or otherwise enhanced nor would vesting be accelerated with respect to such plans. In addition, no accelerated vesting of options, restricted share units or performance share units would occur. Retirement Plan and Excess Benefit Plan information for the Named Executives is set forth in the Pension Benefits Table above.
(2)
The amounts shown represent the following:
 Cash 
Prorated
Non-equity
Incentive Award
 Restricted Share Units Performance Share Units 
Medical
Benefits
 Total
David G. Hutchens$1,380,088
 $359,973
 $218,176
 $436,352
 $33,826
 $2,428,415
Kevin P. Larson666,826
 149,675
 96,745
 193,490
 2,089
 1,108,825
Todd C. Hixon309,539
 91,531
 29,570
 59,140
 5,629
 495,409
Karen G. Kissinger318,060
 88,835
 28,703
 57,406
 19,350
 512,354
Kentton C. Grant294,529
 87,372
 27,206
 54,413
 12,317
 475,837
Amounts shown in the column headed Prorated Non-equity Incentive Award above represent the total "target" PEP award for 2015.
(3)
In the event of death, the Named Executive’s survivor would be entitled to receive a survivor annuity from the Retirement Plan and Excess Benefit Plan. The amount payable to the survivor would be less than the amount that would otherwise have been payable to the Named Executive had the Named Executive survived and received retirement benefits under the Retirement Plan and Excess Benefit Plan. There would be no enhancements as to form, amount or vesting of such benefits in the event of a Named Executive’s death.
(4)
This column reflects the amounts payable to the Named Executives in the event of an involuntary termination without cause or a resignation for good reason, as of December 31, 2015, under the Severance Plan. The amounts shown represent the following:
 Cash 
Pro-Rated
Non-equity
Incentive
Award
 Restricted Share Units Performance Share Units 
Medical
Benefits
 Total
David G. Hutchens$1,380,088
 $359,973
 $218,176
 $436,352
 $33,826
 $2,428,415
Kevin P. Larson666,826
 149,675
 96,745
 193,490
 2,089
 1,108,825
Todd C. Hixon244,908
 91,531
 29,570
 59,140
 5,629
 430,778
Karen G. Kissinger318,060
 88,835
 28,703
 57,406
 19,350
 512,354
Kentton C. Grant294,529
 87,372
 27,206
 54,413
 12,317
 475,837
Director Compensation
All TEP directors are also named executive officers of TEP and received no additional compensation for services as a director. All of their compensation is reflected in the Summary Compensation Table, above.
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
All members of the UNS Energy Human Resources and Governance Committee during fiscal year 2015 were independent directors, except for Mr. Perry, who is an executive officer of Fortis. No Human Resources and Governance Committee member

114


had any relationship requiring disclosure under Transactions with Related Persons, in Part III, Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence, below. During fiscal year 2015, none of the Company’s executive officers served on the Human Resources and Governance Committee or the Board of Directors of another entity whose executive officer(s) served on UNS Energy’s Human Resources and Governance Committee, any other board committee, or the Board of Directors of UNS Energy or TEP as a whole.

ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
All of the outstanding shares of common stock, no par value, of TEP are heldInformation required by UNS Energy, whichItem 12 is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis.omitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2)(c) for Form 10-K.

ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
Director Independence
TEP’s directors are not independent since they are executive officers of TEP and UNS Energy. There are no standing committees of the Board of Directors of TEP.
As described in Part III,Information required by Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance, above, the Audit and Risk Committee of the UNS Energy Board of Directors13 is responsibleomitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2)(c) for overseeing the accounting and financial reporting process and audits of the financial statements of UNS Energy and its consolidated subsidiaries, including TEP.
As described in Part III, Item 11, Executive Compensation, above, the Human Resources and Governance Committee of the UNS Energy Board of Directors is responsible for overseeing the executive compensation policies and practices of UNS Energy and its consolidated subsidiaries, including TEP.
The Board of Directors of UNS Energy has adopted Director Independence Standards that comply with New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) rules for determining independence, among other things, in order to determine eligibility to serve on the Audit and Risk Committee and the Human Resources and Governance Committee of UNS Energy. Neither UNS Energy nor TEP has any securities listed on the NYSE or any other national securities exchange or inter-dealer quotation system requiring that directors or committee members be independent but, in approving the acquisition of UNS Energy by Fortis, the ACC required that a majority of the members of the UNS Energy Board of Directors be independent. The written charters of the UNS Energy Audit and Risk Committee and Human Resources and Governance Committee each require that a majority of the members of each such committee meet both UNS Energy’s Director Independence Standards and independence standards of the NYSE. The UNS Energy Director Independence Standards are available on TEP’s website at www.tep.com/about/investors/.
No director may be deemed independent unless the Board of Directors of UNS Energy affirmatively determines, after due deliberation, that the director has no material relationship with UNS Energy or any of its subsidiaries either directly or as a partner, shareholder or executive officer of an organization that has a relationship with UNS Energy or any of its subsidiaries. In each case, the Board of Directors of UNS Energy broadly considers all the relevant facts and circumstances from the standpoint of the director as well as from that of persons or organizations with which the director has an affiliation and applies these standards.
Annually, the UNS Energy board determines whether each director meets the criteria of independence. Based upon the foregoing criteria, the UNS Energy board has deemed each director of UNS Energy to be independent, with the exception of Messrs. Hutchens, Perry, and Laurito. Mr. Hutchens is the President and Chief Executive Officer of UNS Energy and TEP. Mr. Perry is an executive officer of Fortis. Mr. Laurito is an executive officer of Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation, another wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis. For each other director who is deemed independent, there were no other significant transactions, relationships or arrangements that were considered by the UNS Energy board in determining that the director is independent. See Transactions with Related Persons, below.
Each member of UNS Energy’s Audit and Risk Committee and Human Resources and Governance Committee meets the independence criteria of both the Director Independence Standards and the NYSE listing standards, with the exception of Mr. Perry, who is an executive officer of Fortis, and Mr. Laurito, who is an executive officer of Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation. Mr. Hutchens is not a member of either committee.

115



Transactions with Related Persons
The UNS Energy Board of Directors has adopted a written Policy on Review of Transactions with Related Persons (“Related Person Policy”) under which it reviews related person transactions. The policy is available on TEP’s website at www.tep.com/about/investors/. The Related Person Policy specifies that certain transactions involving directors, executive officers, significant shareholders and certain other related persons in which UNS Energy or its subsidiaries, including TEP, is or will be a participant and are of the type required to be reported as a related person transaction under Item 404 of Regulation S-K shall be reviewed by the UNS Energy Audit and Risk Committee for the purpose of determining whether such transactions are in the best interest of UNS Energy and its subsidiaries. The Related Person Policy also establishes a requirement for directors and executive officers of UNS Energy and its subsidiaries to report transactions involving a related party that exceed $120,000 in value. TEP is not aware of any transactions entered into since the beginning of last year that did not follow the procedures outlined in the Related Person Policy.Form 10-K.

ITEM 14.14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
Pre-Approved Policies and Procedures
Rules adopted by the SEC in order to implement requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 require public company audit committees to pre-approve audit and non-audit services. UNS Energy’s Audit and Risk Committee has adopted a policy pursuant to which audit, audit-related, tax, and other services are pre-approved by category of service. Recognizing that situations may arise where it is in the Company’s best interest for the auditor to perform services in addition to the annual audit of the Company’s financial statements, the policy sets forth guidelines and procedures with respect to approval of the four categories of service designed to achieve the continued independence of the auditor when it is retained to perform such services for UNS Energy. The policy requires the Audit and Risk Committee to be informed of each service and does not include any delegation of the Audit and Risk Committee’s responsibilities to management. The Audit and Risk Committee may delegate to the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee the authority to grant pre-approvals of audit and non-audit services requiring Audit and Risk Committee approval where the Audit and Risk Committee Chair believes it is desirable to pre-approve such services prior to the next regularly scheduled Audit and Risk Committee meeting. The decisions of the Audit and Risk Committee Chair to pre-approve any such services from one regularly scheduled Audit Committee meeting to the next shall be reported to the Audit and Risk Committee.
Fees
Effective October 7, 2014, PwC was dismissed as the independent auditors and replaced with Ernst and Young LLP (EY) as a result of the Fortis acquisition. The table details fees paid to EYErnst and Young LLP (EY) for professional services during 20152016 and 2014.2015. The Audit and Risk Committee has considered whether the provision of services to TEP by EY, beyond those rendered in connection with their audit and review of TEP’s financial statements, is compatible with maintaining their independence as auditor.
TEP's fees for principal accountant services are as follows:
(in thousands)2015 20142016 2015
Audit Fees$1,352
 $1,206
$1,244
 $1,350
Audit-Related Fees
 

 
Tax Fees70
 84
100
 70
All Other Fees
 

 
Total$1,422
 $1,290
$1,344
 $1,420
Audit fees include fees for the audit of TEP’s consolidated financial statements included in TEP’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and review of financial statements included in TEP’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. Audit fees also include services


provided in connection with comfort letters, consents and other services related to SEC matters, financing transactions, and statutory and regulatory audits.
Tax fees reported for 20152016 and 20142015 include fees for tax appeals, and in 2014 for consulting.appeals.
All services performed by our principal accountant are approved in advance by the Audit and Risk Committee in accordance with the Audit and Risk Committee’s pre-approval policy for services provided by the Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.

116




PART IV
ITEM 15.15. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
 Page
(a) (1) Consolidated Financial Statements as of December 31, 20152016 and 20142015 and for Each of the Three Years in the Period Ended December 31, 20152016 
  
  
(2) Financial Statement Schedule 
All schedules have been omitted because they are either not applicable, not required or the information required to be set forth therein is included on the Consolidated Financial Statements or notes thereto. 
  
(3) Exhibits 
  
Reference is made to the Exhibit Index commencing on page 11989.
 

ITEM 16. FORM 10-K SUMMARY
Not Applicable.


11787




SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
   TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
   (Registrant)
    
Date:February 18, 201616, 2017 /s/ KevinFrank P. LarsonMarino
   KevinFrank P. LarsonMarino
   Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and ChiefDirector
   (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
    
Date:February 18, 201616, 2017 /s/ David G. Hutchens*
   David G. Hutchens
   President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
   (Principal Executive Officer)
   
Date:February 18, 2016/s/ Kevin P. Larson
Kevin P. Larson
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Director
(Principal Financial Officer)
Date:February 18, 201616, 2017 /s/ Frank P. Marino*Marino
   Frank P. Marino
   Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and ControllerDirector
   (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
   
Date:February 18, 201616, 2017 /s/ Todd C. Hixon*
   Todd C. Hixon
   Director
   
Date:February 18, 201616, 2017By:/s/ KevinFrank P. LarsonMarino
   KevinFrank P. LarsonMarino
   *As attorney-in-fact for each of the persons indicated


11888




EXHIBIT INDEX
*2(a) Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 11, 2013, among FortisUS Inc., Color Acquisition Sub Inc., UNS Energy Corporation and solely for purposes of Section 5.5(a) and 8.15, Fortis Inc. (Form 8-K, dated December 12, 2013, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 2.1).
   
*2(a)(1) First Amendment to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 14, 2014, by and among FortisUS Inc., Color Acquisition Sub Inc. and UNS Energy Corporation (Form 8-K, dated August 14, 2014, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 2.2).
   
*3(a) Restated Articles of Incorporation of TEP, filed with the ACC on August 11, 1994, as amended by Amendment to Article Fourth of our Restated Articles of Incorporation, filed with the ACC on May 17, 1996. (Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit No 3(a)).
   
*3(a)(1) TEP Articles of Amendment filed with the ACC on September 3, 2009 (Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 3(a)).
   
*3(b) Bylaws of TEP, as amended as of August 12, 2015 (Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 3).
   
*3(c) Amendment to Articles of Incorporation of UNS Energy Corporation, creating series of Limited Voting Junior Preferred Stock (Form 8-K dated August 12, 2015, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 3.2).
   
*4(c)(1)Indenture of Trust, dated as of March 1, 2008, between The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Pima and U.S. Bank Trust National Association authorizing Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, 2008 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Project). (Form 8-K dated March 19, 2008, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(a)).
*4(c)(2)Loan Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2008, between the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Pima and TEP relating to Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, 2008 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Project). (Form 8-K dated March 19, 2008, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(b)).
*4(d)(1)Indenture of Trust, dated as of June 1, 2008, between The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Pima and U.S. Bank Trust National Association authorizing Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, 2008 Series B (Tucson Electric Power Company Project). (Form 8-K dated June 25, 2008, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(a)).
*4(d)(2)Loan Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2008, between The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Pima and TEP relating to Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, 2008 Series B (Tucson Electric Power Company Project). (Form 8-K dated June 25, 2008, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(b)).
*4(e)(1) Indenture of Trust, dated as of October 1, 2009, between The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Pima and U.S. Bank Trust National Association authorizing Pollution Control Revenue Bonds, 2009 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Navajo Project). (Form 8-K dated October 13, 2009, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(A)).
   
*4(e)4(a)(2) Loan Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2009, between The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Pima and TEP relating to Pollution Control Revenue Bonds, 2009 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company San Juan Project). (Form 8-K dated October 13, 2009, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(B)).
   
*4(f)4(b)(1) Indenture of Trust, dated as of October 1, 2009, between Coconino County, Arizona Pollution Control Corporation and U.S. Bank Trust National Association authorizing Pollution Control Revenue Bonds, 2009 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Navajo Project). (Form 8-K dated October 13, 2009, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(C)).

119




   
*4(f)4(b)(2) Loan Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2009, between Coconino County, Arizona Pollution Control Corporation and TEP relating to Pollution Control Revenue Bonds, 2009 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Navajo Project). (Form 8-K dated October 13, 2009, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(D)).
   
*4(g)4(c)(1) Indenture of Trust, dated as of October 1, 2010, between the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Pima and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, authorizing Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, 2010 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Project). (Form 8-K dated October 8, 2010, File No. 1-05924 Exhibit 4(a)).
   
*4(g)4(c)(2) Loan Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2010, between the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Pima and TEP, relating to Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, 2010 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Project). (Form 8-K dated October 8, 2010, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(b)).
   
*4(h)4(d)(1) Indenture of Trust, dated as of December 1, 2010, between the Coconino County, Arizona Pollution Control Corporation and U.S. Bank Trust National Association authorizing Pollution Control Bonds, 2010 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Navajo Project). (Form 8-K dated December 17, 2010, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(c)).
   

89




*4(h)4(d)(2) Loan Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2010, between the Coconino County, Arizona Pollution Control Corporation and TEP relating to Pollution Control Bonds, 2010 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Navajo Project). (Form 8-K dated December 17, 2010, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(d)).
   
*4(i)4(e)(1) Indenture of Trust, dated as of March 1, 2012, between The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Apache and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, authorizing Pollution Control Revenue Bonds, 2012 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Project). (Form 8-K dated March 21, 2012, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(a)).
   
*4(i)4(e)(2) Loan Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2012, between The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Apache and TEP, relating to Pollution Control Revenue Bonds, 2012 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Project). (Form 8-K dated March 21, 2012, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(b)).
   
*4(j)4(f)(1) Indenture of Trust, dated as of June 1, 2012, between The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Pima and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, authorizing Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, 2012 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Project). (Form 8-K dated June 21, 2012, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(a)).
   
*4(j)4(f)(2) Loan Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2012, between The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Pima and TEP, relating to Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, 2012 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Project). (Form 8-K dated June 21, 2012, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(b)).
   
*4(k)4(g)(1) Indenture of Trust, dated as of March 1, 2013, between The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Pima and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, authorizing Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, 2013 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Project). (Form 8-K dated March 14, 2013, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(a)).
   
*4(k)4(g)(2) Loan Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2013, between The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Pima and TEP, relating to Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, 2013 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Project). (Form 8-K dated March 14, 2013, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(b)).
   
*4(l)4(h)(1) Indenture of Trust, dated as of November 1, 2013, between The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Apache and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, authorizing Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, 2013 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Springerville Project). (Form 8-K dated November 14, 2013, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(a)).
   

120




*4(l)4(h)(2) Loan Agreement, dated as of November 1, 2013, between The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Apache and Tucson Electric Power Company, relating to Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, 2013 Series A (Tucson Electric Power Company Springerville Project). (Form 8-K dated November 14, 2013, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(b)).
   
*4(l)4(h)(3) Lender Rate Mode Covenants Agreement, dated as of November 1, 2013, between Tucson Electric Power Company and STI Institutional & Government, Inc. (Form 8-K dated November 14, 2013, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(c)).
   
*4(l)4(h)(4) Amendment, dated May 26, 2015, between Tucson Electric Power Company, STI Institutional & Government, Inc., and Branch Banking and Trust Company, to Lender Rate Made Covenants Agreement, dated November 1, 2013 (Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4).
   
*4(m)4(i)(1) Indenture, dated November 1, 2011, between Tucson Electric Power Company and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, authorizing unsecured Notes (Form 8-K dated November 8, 2011, File 1-05924 - Exhibit 4.1).
   
*4(m)4(i)(2) Officers Certificate, dated November 8, 2011, authorizing 5.15% Notes due 2021. (Form 8-K dated November 8, 2011, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4.2).
   

90




*4(m)4(i)(3) Officers Certificate, dated September 14, 2012, authorizing 3.85% Notes due 2023. (Form 8-K dated September 14, 2012, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4.1).
   
*4(m)4(i)(4) Officer's Certificate, dated March 10, 2014, authorizing 5.00% Senior Notes due 2044 (Form 8-K dated March 10, 2014, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4.1).
   
*4(m)4(i)(5) Officer's Certificate, dated February 27, 2015, authorizing 3.05% Senior Notes due 2025 (Form 8-K dated February 27, 2015, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(a)).
   
*4(o)4(j)(1) Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of December 14, 2010, among TEP, as Borrower, the financial institutions from time to time, parties thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent and as Issuing Bank. (Form 8-K dated December 17, 2010, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(a)).
   
*4(o)4(j)(2) Amendment No. 1 to Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of February 11, 2014 among TEP, as Borrower, the financial institutions from time to time, parties thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent and as Issuing Bank (Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4(t)(2)).
   
*4(r)4(k)(1) Credit Agreement, dated as of October 15, 2015, among Tucson Electric Power Company, MUFG Union Bank, N.A. as Administrative Agent, and a group of lenders (Form 8-K dated October 15, 2015, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 4.1).
   
*10(b)10(a)(1) Lease Agreements, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos Resources Inc. (San Carlos) (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Registrant) jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee, as amended and supplemented. (Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1985, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(f)(1)).
   
*10(b)10(a)(2)Tax Indemnity Agreements, dated as of December 1, 1985, between Philip Morris Credit Corporation, IBM Credit Financing Corporation and Emerson Finance Co., each as beneficiary under a separate trust agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, with Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustee, and William J. Wade, as Co-Trustee, and TEP and San Carlos, as Lessee. (Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1985, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(f)(2)).

121




*10(b)(3)Participation Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, among TEP and San Carlos as Lessee, Philip Morris Credit Corporation, IBM Credit Financing Corporation, and Emerson Finance Co. as Owner Participants, Wilmington Trust Company as Owner Trustee, The Sumitomo Bank, Limited, New York Branch, as Loan Participant, and Bankers Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee. (Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1985, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(f)(3)).
*10(b)(4)Restructuring Commitment Agreement, dated as of June 30, 1992, among TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, Philip Morris Credit Corporation, IBM Credit Financing Corporation and Emerson Capital Funding, William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, The Sumitomo Bank, Limited, New York Branch, as Loan Participant and United States Trust Company of New York, as Indenture Trustee. (Form S-4, Registration No. 33-52860 - Exhibit 10(g)(4)).
*10(b)(5) Lease Supplement No.1, dated December 31, 1985, to Lease Agreements, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively (document filed relates to Philip Morris Credit Corporation; documents relating to IBM Credit Financing Corporation and Emerson Financing Co. are not filed but are substantially similar). (Form S-4, Registration No. 33-52860 - Exhibit 10(g)(5)).
   
*10(b)(6)10(a)(3) Amendment No. 1, dated as of December 15, 1992, to Lease Agreements, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, as Lessor. (Form S-1, Registration No. 33-55732 - Exhibit 10(g)(6)).
   
*10(b)(7)Amendment No. 1, dated as of December 15, 1992, to Tax Indemnity Agreements, dated as of December 1, 1985, between Philip Morris Credit Corporation, IBM Credit Financing Corporation and Emerson Capital Funding Corp., as Owner Participants and TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee. (Form S-1, Registration No. 33-55732 - Exhibit 10(g)(7)).
*10(b)(8)10(a)(4) Amendment No. 2, dated as of December 1, 1999, to Lease Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, under a Trust Agreement with Philip Morris Capital Corporation as Owner Participant. (Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(b)(8)).
   
*10(b)(9)10(a)(5) Amendment No. 2, dated as of December 1, 1999, to Lease Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, under a Trust Agreement with IBM Credit Financing Corporation as Owner Participant. (Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(b)(9)).
   
*10(b)(10)10(a)(6) Amendment No. 2, dated as of December 1, 1999, to Lease Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, under a Trust Agreement with Emerson Finance Co. as Owner Participant. (Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(b)(10)).
   
*10(b)(11)Amendment No. 2, dated as of December 1, 1999, to Tax Indemnity Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Philip Morris Capital Corporation as Owner Participant, beneficiary under a Trust Agreement dated as of December 1, 1985, with Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, together as Lessor. (Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(b)(11)).
*10(b)(12)Amendment No. 2, dated as of December 1, 1999, to Tax Indemnity Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and IBM Credit Financing Corporation as Owner Participant, beneficiary under a Trust Agreement dated as of December 1, 1985, with Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, together as Lessor. (Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(b)(12)).

12291




*10(b)(13)Amendment No. 2, dated as of December 1, 1999, to Tax Indemnity Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Emerson Finance Co. as Owner Participant, beneficiary under a Trust Agreement dated as of December 1, 1985, with Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, together as Lessor. (Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(b)(13)).
*10(b)(14)10(a)(7) Amendment No. 3 dated as of June 1, 2003, to Lease Agreements, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, under a Trust Agreement with Philip Morris Capital Corporation as Owner Participant. (Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(a)).
   
*10(b)(15)10(a)(8) Amendment No. 3 dated as of June 1, 2003, to Lease Agreements, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, under a Trust Agreement with IBM Credit, LLC as Owner Participant. (Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(b)).
   
*10(b)(16)10(a)(9) Amendment No. 3 dated as of June 1, 2003, to Lease Agreements, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, under a Trust Agreement with Emerson Finance Co. as Owner Participant. (Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(c)).
   
*10(b)(17)Amendment No. 3 dated as of June 1, 2003, to Tax Indemnity Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Philip Morris Capital Corporation as Owner Participant, beneficiary under a Trust Agreement dated as of December 1, 1985, with Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, together as Lessor. (Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(d)).
*10(b)(18)Amendment No. 3 dated as of June 1, 2003, to Tax Indemnity Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and IBM Credit, LLC as Owner Participant, beneficiary under a Trust Agreement dated as of December 1, 1985, with Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, together as Lessor. (Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(e)).
*10(b)(19)Amendment No. 3 dated as of June 1, 2003, to Tax Indemnity Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Emerson Finance Co. as Owner Participant, beneficiary under a Trust Agreement dated as of December 1, 1985, with Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, together as Lessor. (Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(f)).
*10(b)(20)10(a)(10) Amendment No. 4, dated as of June 1, 2006, to Lease Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-trustee, respectively, under a Trust Agreement with Philip Morris Capital Corporation as Owner Participant. (Form 8-K dated June 12, 2006, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10.1).
   
*10(b)(21)10(a)(11) Amendment No. 4, dated as of June 1, 2006, to Lease Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-trustee, respectively, under a Trust Agreement with Selco Service Corporation as Owner Participant. (Form 8-K dated June 12, 2006, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10.2).
   
*10(b)(22)10(a)(12) Amendment No. 4, dated as of June 1, 2006, to Lease Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, jointly and severally, as Lessee, and Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-trustee, respectively, under a Trust Agreement with Emerson Finance LLC as Owner Participant. (Form 8-K dated June 12, 2006, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10.3).

123




*10(b)(23)Amendment No. 4, dated as of June 1, 2006 to Tax Indemnity Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, as Lessee, and Philip Morris Capital Corporation as Owner Participant, beneficiary under a Trust Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, with Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-trustee, respectively, together as Lessor. (Form 8-K dated June 12, 2006, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10.4).
*10(b)(24)Amendment No. 4, dated as of June 1, 2006 to Tax Indemnity Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, as Lessee, and Selco Service Corporation as Owner Participant, beneficiary under a Trust Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, with Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-trustee, respectively, together as Lessor. (Form 8-K dated June 12, 2006, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10.5).
*10(b)(25)Amendment No. 4, dated as of June 1, 2006 to Tax Indemnity Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, between TEP and San Carlos, as Lessee, and Emerson Finance LLC as Owner Participant, beneficiary under a Trust Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1985, with Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-trustee, respectively, together as Lessor. (Form 8-K dated June 12, 2006, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10.6).
*10(c)(1)Participation Agreement, dated as of June 30, 1992, among TEP, as Lessee, various parties thereto, as Owner, Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, and LaSalle National Bank, as Indenture Trustee relating to TEP’s lease of Springerville Unit 1. (Form S-1, Registration No. 33-55732 - Exhibit 10(u)).
*10(c)(2)Lease Agreements, dated as of December 15, 1992, between TEP, as Lessee, and Wilmington Trust Company and William J. Wade, as Owner Trustee and Co-Trustee, respectively, as Lessor. (Form S-1, Registration No. 33-55732 - Exhibit 10(v)).
*10(c)(3)Tax Indemnity Agreements, dated as of December 15, 1992, between the various Owner Participants parties thereto and TEP, as Lessee. (Form S-1, Registration No. 33-55732 - Exhibit 10(w)).
+10(d)UNS Energy Officer Change in Control Agreement (a schedule of officers who are covered by the agreement or substantially identical agreements is filed separately), between UNS Energy and officers of UNS Energy.
+10(d)(1)Schedule of Officers covered by UNS Energy Officer Change in Control Agreement or substantially Identical Agreements.
+*10(f)Retention Bonus Agreement between Kevin P. Larson and UNS Energy Corporation (Form 8-K, dated November 13, 2014, File No. 1-05924 - Exhibit 10(a)).
+*10(g)UNS Energy Corporation 2015 Share Unit Plan (Form 8-K, dated February 23, 2015, File No. 1-05924-Exhibit 10(a)).
   
12 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges.
   
21 Subsidiaries of the Registrant.
   
24 Power of Attorney.
   
31(a) Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, by David G. Hutchens.
   
31(b) Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, by KevinFrank P. Larson.Marino.
   
**32 Statements of Corporate Officers (pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002).

124




   
101.INS XBRL Instance Document
   
101.SCH XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document
   
101.CAL XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document
   
101.LAB XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document
   
101.PRE XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document

92




   
101.DEF XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document
   
*Previously filed as indicated and incorporated herein by reference.
+Management contracts or compensatory plans or arrangements required to be filed as exhibits to this Form 10-K by Item 601(b)(10)(iii) of Regulation S-K.
**Pursuant to Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K, this certificate is not being “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


12593