Table of Contents


UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 _________________________________________________
FORM 10-K
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 20152017

Commission
File Number
 
Names of Registrants, State of Incorporation,
Address and Telephone Number
 
I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.
001-32462 
PNM Resources, Inc.
(A New Mexico Corporation)
414 Silver Ave. SW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-3289
(505) 241-2700
 85-0468296
001-06986 
Public Service Company of New Mexico
(A New Mexico Corporation)
414 Silver Ave. SW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-3289
(505) 241-2700
 85-0019030
002-97230 
Texas-New Mexico Power Company
(A Texas Corporation)
577 N. Garden Ridge Blvd.
Lewisville, Texas 75067
(972) 420-4189
 75-0204070
Securities Registered Pursuant To Section 12(b) Of The Act:
Registrant Title of Each Class 
Name of Each Exchange
on Which Registered
PNM Resources, Inc. Common Stock, no par value New York Stock Exchange
Securities Registered Pursuant To Section 12(g) Of The Act:
Registrant 
Title of Each Class                
Public Service Company of New Mexico 1965 Series, 4.58% Cumulative Preferred Stock
  ($100 stated value without sinking fund)
Indicate by check mark whether each registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
PNM Resources, Inc. (“PNMR”) 
YES  ü
 
NO     
Public Service Company of New Mexico (“PNM”) 
YES     
 
NO ü
Texas-New Mexico Power Company (“TNMP”) 
YES     
 
NO ü

Indicate by check mark if each registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
PNMR 
YES     
 
NO ü
PNM 
YES     
 
NO ü
TNMP 
YES  ü
 
NO     






Indicate by check mark whether each 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.
 
PNMR  
YES  ü
 
NO     
PNM  
YES  ü
 
NO     
TNMP  
YES     
 
NO  ü
(NOTE: As a voluntary filer, not subject to the filing requirements, TNMP filed all reports under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months.)
Indicate by check mark whether each registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, 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).
 
PNMR  
YES  ü
 
NO     
PNM  
YES  ü
 
NO     
TNMP  
YES  ü
 
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 registrants’ 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.     ü
Indicate by check mark whether each registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company, (as definedor an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).Exchange Act.
 
  
Large accelerated
filer
Accelerated
filer
 
Non-accelerated
filer (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
 
Smaller Reportingreporting
Companycompany
Emerging growth company
PNMR 
 ü
              
PNM        
 ü
    
TNMP        
 ü
    

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. £

Indicate by check mark whether the registrants are a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). YES         NO  ü

As of February 19, 2016,20, 2018, shares of common stock outstanding were:
 
PNMR79,653,624
PNM39,117,799
TNMP6,358

On June 30, 2015,2017, the aggregate market value of the voting common stock held by non-affiliates of PNMR as computed by reference to the New York Stock Exchange composite transaction closing price of $24.60$38.25 per share reported by The Wall Street Journal, was $1,959,479,150.$3,046,751,118. PNM and TNMP have no common stock held by non-affiliates.
PNM AND TNMP MEET THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS (I) (1) (a) AND (b) OF FORM 10-K AND ARE THEREFORE FILING THIS FORM WITH THE REDUCED DISCLOSURE FORMAT PURSUANT TO GENERAL INSTRUCTION (I) (2).
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the following document are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report:
Proxy Statement to be filed by PNMR with the SEC pursuant to Regulation 14A relating to the annual meeting of stockholders of PNMR to be held on May 17, 2016.22, 2018.
This combined Form 10-K is separately filed by PNMR, PNM, and TNMP.  Information contained herein relating to any individual registrant is filed by such registrant on its own behalf.  Each registrant makes no representation as to information relating to the other registrants.  When this Form 10-K is incorporated by reference into any filing with the SEC made by PNMR, PNM, or TNMP, as a registrant, the portions of this Form 10-K that relate to each other registrant are not incorporated by reference therein.

ii



PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
INDEX 
   Page
  
PART I 
ITEM 1. BUSINESS
OPERATIONS AND REGULATION
 
EMPLOYEES
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
PART II 
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR PNMR’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER 
 MATTERS, AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURE ABOUT MARKET RISK
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING
AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE 
ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION
PART III 
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, AND CORPORATE GOVERANCE
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIPOWNERSIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR
INDEPENDENCE
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES
PART IV 
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
ITEM 16. FORM 10-K SUMMARY
 

iii



GLOSSARY
 
Definitions:   
2014 IRPPNM’s 2014 IRP
2017 IRPPNM’s 2017 IRP
ABCWUAAlbuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority
ABO  Accumulated Benefit Obligation
AEP OnSite PartnersAEP OnSite Partners, LLC, a subsidiary of American Electric Power, Inc.
Afton  Afton Generating Station
AFUDC Allowance for Funds Used During Construction
ALJ  Administrative Law Judge
AMIAdvanced Metering Infrastructure
AMS Advanced Meter System
Anaheim City of Anaheim, California
AOCI  Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income
APBO  Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
APS  Arizona Public Service Company, the operator and a co-owner of PVNGS and Four Corners
ARO  Asset Retirement Obligation
ASU Accounting Standards Update
BACTAugust RD Best Available Control TechnologyRecommended Decision in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case issued by the Hearing Examiner on August 4, 2016
BART  Best Available Retrofit Technology
BDT Balanced Draft Technology
BHP  BHP Billiton, Ltd
Board  Board of Directors of PNMR
BTMU The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.
BTMU Term Loan Agreement NM Capital’s $125.0 Million Unsecured Term Loan
BTU  British Thermal Unit
CAA Clean Air Act
CCB  Coal Combustion Byproducts
CCN Certificate of Convenience and Necessity
CO2
CIAC
Contributions in Aid of Construction
CO2  Carbon Dioxide
COFACapacity Option and Funding Agreement
CSA Coal Supply Agreement
CTC  Competition Transition Charge
D.C.DC Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Delta  Delta-Person Generating Station, now known as Rio Bravo
DOE  United States Department of Energy
DOI  United States Department of Interior
EGU Electric Generating Unit
EIBNew Mexico Environmental Improvement Board
EIP  Eastern Interconnection Project
EIS Environmental Impact Study
EPA  United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPE  El Paso Electric Company
EPNGEl Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
ERCOT  Electric Reliability Council of Texas
ESA Endangered Species Act
Exchange Act Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Farmington The City of Farmington, New Mexico
FASB  Financial Accounting Standards Board
FERC  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

iv



FIP  Federal Implementation Plan
First ChoiceFCP Enterprises, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Four Corners  Four Corners Power Plant
FPL  FPL Energy New Mexico Wind, LLC

iv



FPPAC  Fuel and Purchased Power Adjustment Clause
FTY Future Test Year
GAAP  Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States of America
GallupCity of Gallup, New Mexico
GHG  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GWh  Gigawatt hours
IBEW  International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
IRS  Internal Revenue Service
ISFSI Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
KW  Kilowatt
KWh  Kilowatt Hour
La Luz  La Luz Generating Station
LIBOR  London Interbank Offered Rate
Lightning Dock Geothermal Lightning Dock geothermal power facility, also known as the Dale Burgett Geothermal Plant
Lordsburg  Lordsburg Generating Station
Los Alamos The Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico
Luna  Luna Energy Facility
MD&A  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
MMBTU  Million BTUs
Moody’s  Moody’s Investor Services, Inc.
MSR M-S-R Public Power Agency
MW  Megawatt
MWh  Megawatt Hour
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Navajo Acts  Navajo Nation Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, Navajo Nation Safe Drinking Water Act, and Navajo Nation Pesticide Act
NDT  Nuclear Decommissioning Trusts for PVNGS
NEC Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc.
NEE New Energy Economy
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NERC  North American Electric Reliability Corporation
New Mexico Wind New Mexico Wind Energy Center
NM 2015 Rate CaseRequest for a General Increase in Electric Rates Filed by PNM on August 27, 2015
NM 2016 Rate CaseRequest for a General Increase in Electric Rates Filed by PNM on December 7, 2016
NM Capital NM Capital Utility Corporation, an unregulated wholly-owned subsidiary of PNMR
NM District CourtUnited States District Court for the District of New Mexico
NM Supreme CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
NMAG  New Mexico Attorney General
NMED  New Mexico Environment Department
NMIEC  New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers Inc.
NMMMDThe Mining and Minerals Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department
NMPRC  New Mexico Public Regulation Commission
NMSCNMRD New Mexico Supreme CourtNM Renewable Development, LLC, owned 50% each by PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners, LLC
NOx  Nitrogen Oxides
NOPR Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

v



NPDESNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRC  United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NSPS  New Source Performance Standards
NSR  New Source Review
NTECNavajo Transitional Energy Company, LLC, an entity owned by the Navajo Nation
OCI  Other Comprehensive Income
OPEB  Other Post EmploymentPost-Employment Benefits
OSM United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
PBO  Projected Benefit Obligation
PCRBs  Pollution Control Revenue Bonds

v



PNM  Public Service Company of New Mexico and Subsidiaries
PNM 2013 Term Loan Agreement2014 New Mexico Credit Facility PNM’s $75.0$50.0 Million Unsecured Term LoanRevolving Credit Facility
PNM 2014 Term Loan Agreement PNM’s $175.0 Million Unsecured Term Loan
PNM 2016 Term Loan AgreementPNM’s $175.0 Million Unsecured Term Loan
PNM 2017 New Mexico Credit FacilityPNM’s $40.0 Million Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility
PNM 2017 Senior Unsecured Note AgreementPNM’s Agreement for the sale of Senior Unsecured Notes, aggregating $450.0 million
PNM 2017 Term Loan AgreementPNM’s $200.0 Million Unsecured Term Loan
PNM 2018 SUNsPNM’s Senior Unsecured Notes to be issued under the PNM 2017 Senior Unsecured Note Agreement
PNM Multi-draw Term Loan PNM’s $125.0 Million Unsecured Multi-draw Term Loan Facility
PNM New Mexico Credit FacilityPNM’s $50.0 Million Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility
PNM Revolving Credit Facility PNM’s $400.0 Million Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility
PNMR  PNM Resources, Inc. and Subsidiaries
PNMR 2015 Term

Loan Agreement
 PNMR’s $150.0 Million Three-Year Unsecured Term Loan
PNMR 2016 One-Year Term LoanPNMR’s $100.0 Million One-Year Unsecured Term Loan
PNMR 2016 Two-Year Term LoanPNMR’s $100.0 Million Two-Year Unsecured Term Loan
PNMR Development PNMR Development and Management Company, an unregulated wholly-owned subsidiary of PNMR
PNMR Revolving Credit Facility PNMR’s $300.0 Million Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility
PNMR Term Loan Agreement  PNMR’s $150.0 Million One-Year Unsecured Term Loan
PPA  Power Purchase Agreement
PSA Power Sales Agreement
PSD  Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PUCT  Public Utility Commission of Texas
PV  Photovoltaic
PVNGS  Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
RA San Juan Project Restructuring Agreement
RCRA  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCT  Reasonable Cost Threshold
REA New Mexico’s Renewable Energy Act of 2004
REC  Renewable Energy Certificates

vi



Red Mesa Wind Red Mesa Wind Energy Center
REP  Retail Electricity Provider
RFPRequest For Proposal
Rio Bravo Rio Bravo Generating Station, formerly known as Delta
RMC  Risk Management Committee
ROE Return on Equity
RPS  Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard
RSIP Revised State Implementation Plan
S&P  Standard and Poor’s Ratings Services
SCE  Southern California Edison Company
SCPPA  Southern California Public Power Authority
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SEC  United States Securities and Exchange Commission
SIP  State Implementation Plan
SJCC  San Juan Coal Company
SJGS  San Juan Generating Station
SJGS CSASan Juan Generating Station Coal Supply Agreement
SJGS RASan Juan Project Restructuring Agreement
SJPPA San Juan Project Participation Agreement
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
SO2
SO2
  Sulfur Dioxide
SPS  Southwestern Public Service Company
SRP  Salt River Project
TCEQ  Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

vi



TECA  Texas Electric Choice Act
Tenth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
TNMP  Texas-New Mexico Power Company and Subsidiaries
TNMP 2011 Term Loan AgreementTNMP’s $50.0 Million Secured Term Loan
TNMP 20132015 Bond Purchase Agreement TNMP’s $80.0$60.0 Million First Mortgage Bonds
TNMP 20152017 Bond Purchase Agreement TNMP’s Agreement for the issuance of $60.0 Million First Mortgage Bonds
TNMP Revolving Credit Facility  TNMP’s $75.0 Million Secured Revolving Credit Facility
TNP  TNP Enterprises, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Tri-State  Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
Tucson  Tucson Electric Power Company
UAMPS  Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems
UG-CSA Underground Coal Sales Agreement for San Juan Generating Station
USSCUS Supreme Court United States Supreme Court
Valencia  Valencia Energy Facility
VaR  Value at Risk
VIE Variable Interest Entity
WACC  Weighted Average Cost of Capital
WEG WildEarth Guardians
Westmoreland Westmoreland Coal Company
Westmoreland Loan$125.0 Million of funding provided by NM Capital to WSJ
WSJWestmoreland San Juan, LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Westmoreland
WSPP  Western Systems Power Pool


vii



PART I
 
ITEM 1.BUSINESS

THE COMPANY
Overview
PNMR is an investor-owned holding company with two regulated utilities providing electricity and electric services in New Mexico and Texas. PNMR’s electric utilities are PNM and TNMP. PNMR is focused on achieving the following strategic goals:
 
Earning authorized returns on its regulated businesses
Delivering above industry-average earnings and dividend growth
Maintaining solid investment grade credit ratings

In conjunction with these goals, PNM and TNMP are dedicated to:

Maintaining strong employee safety, plant performance, and system reliability
Delivering a superior customer experience
Demonstrating environmental stewardship in their business operations
Supporting the communities in their service territories

PNMR’s success in accomplishing these strategic goals is highly dependent on continued favorable regulatory treatment for its regulated utilities. Both PNM and TNMP seek cost recovery for their investments through general rate cases and various rate riders. PNM hasfiled general rate cases with the NMPRC in August 2015 and December 2016. The NMPRC issued rate orders in those cases in September 2016 and January 2018. TNMP plans to file a general rate case filed in August 2015, pending before the NMPRC.May 2018. Additional information about rate filings is provided in Operations and Regulation below and in Note 17.

PNMR’s common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol PNM. PNMR was incorporated in the State of New Mexico in 2000.

Other Information

These filings for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP include disclosures for each entity. For discussion purposes, this report uses the term “Company” when discussing matters of common applicability to PNMR, PNM, and TNMP. Discussions regarding only PNMR, PNM, or TNMP are so indicated. A reference to “MD&A” in this report refers to Part II, Item 7. – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. A reference to a “Note” refers to the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Financial information relating to amounts of revenue, net income, and total assets of reportable segments is contained in MD&A and Note 2.

WEBSITES
The PNMR website, www.pnmresources.com, is an important source of Company information. New or updated information for public access is routinely posted.  PNMR encourages analysts, investors, and other interested parties to register on the website to automatically receive Company information by e-mail. This information includes news releases, notices of webcasts, and filings with the SEC. Participants can unsubscribe at any time and will not receive information that was not requested.requested and can unsubscribe at any time.
Our corporate Internetinternet addresses are:

PNMR: www.pnmresources.com
PNM: www.pnm.com
TNMP: www.tnmp.com

In additionThe PNMR website includes a link to PNMR’s Sustainability Portal, www.pnmresources.com/about-us/sustainability-portal.aspx. This portal provides access to key sustainability information, including a Climate Change Report, related to the corporate websites,operations of PNM established a website, www.PowerforProgress.com, dedicatedand TNMP and reflects PNMR’s commitment to showing how PNM balances delivering reliable power at affordable pricesdo business in an ethical, open, and protecting the environment. This website is designed to be a resource for the facts about PNM’s operations and support efforts, including plans for building a sustainable energy future for New Mexico. transparent manner.

A - 1



The contents of these websites are not a part of this Form 10-K. The SEC filings of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, are accessible free of charge on the PNMR website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. These documents may be read and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Room 1580, Washington, D.C. 20549. Further information about the Public Reference Room can be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Reports filed with the SEC are available on its website, www.sec.gov. These reports are also available in print upon request from PNMR free of charge.


A- 1



Also available on the Company’s website at http://www.pnmresources.com/corporate-governance.aspx and in print upon request from any shareholder are our:PNMR’s:

Corporate Governance Principles
Code of Ethics (Do the Right Thing Principles of Business Conduct)
Charters of the Audit and Ethics Committee, Nominating and Governance Committee, Compensation and Human Resources Committee, and Finance Committee
Restated Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws

The Company will post amendments to or waivers from its code of ethics (to the extent applicable to the Company’s executive officers and directors) on its website.

OPERATIONS AND REGULATION

Regulated Operations

PNM

PNM is an electric utility that provides electric generation, transmission, and distribution service to its rate-regulated customers. InPNM was incorporated in the State of New Mexico the utility’sin 1917. PNM’s retail electric service territory covers a large area of north central New Mexico, including the cities of Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, and Santa Fe, and certain areas of southern New Mexico. PNM also provides electricity to firm-requirements wholesale customers in New Mexico and Arizona. Service to retail electric customers is subject to the jurisdiction of the NMPRC. Service to wholesale customers is regulatedThe largest retail electric customer served by FERC. Regulation encompassesPNM accounted for 2.4% of its revenues for the utility’s electric rates, service, accounting, issuances of securities, construction of major new generation, types of generation resources, transmission and distribution facilities, and other matters.

year ended December 31, 2017. Other services provided by PNM include wholesale transmission services to third parties as well as the generation and sale of electricity into the wholesale market, which services are regulated by FERC. PNM owns or leases transmission lines that are interconnected with other utilities in New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. The largest retailRegulation encompasses the utility’s electric customer served by PNM accountedrates, service, accounting, issuances of securities, construction of major new generation, abandonment of existing generation, types of generation resources, transmission and distribution facilities, and other matters. See Note 17 for 3.2% of its revenues for the year ended December 31, 2015. PNM was incorporated in the State of New Mexico in 1917.additional information on rate cases and other regulatory matters.

NMPRC Regulated Retail Rate Proceedings

Customer rates for retail electric service are set by the NMPRC. On October 1, 2016, PNM implemented a NMPRC order in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case that approved an increase in non-fuel base rates of $61.2 million annually. PNM is appealing certain aspects of the NMPRC’s order in the NM Supreme Court. Other parties in that rate case have filed cross-appeals contesting other aspects of the NMPRC ruling. Oral argument at the NM Supreme Court was held on October 30, 2017. Although appeals of regulatory actions of the NMPRC have priority at the NM Supreme Court, there is no required time frame for the court to act on the appeal. See Note 17.

In December 2016, PNM filed a general rate case (the “NM 2016 Rate Case”) with the NMPRC inNMPRC. The December 2014. PNM’s2016 application proposed a non-fuel revenue increase of $107.4$99.2 million above the October 1, 2016 rates to be effective on January 1, 2016,2018. The requested increase was based on a calendar 20162018 future test year (“FTY”). On May 13, and a ROE of 10.125% compared to a ROE of 9.575% authorized in the NM 2015 the NMPRC voted to dismiss PNM’s application as being incomplete, primarily due to procedural defects. On August 27, 2015, PNM filed a new application with the NMPRC for a general increase in retail electric rates. The application proposes a revenue increase of $123.5 million, including base fuel revenues.Rate Case. The primary drivers of PNM’s identified revenue deficiency arewere the implementation of the plan for SJGS to comply with the CAA Note 16, including the shutdown of Units 2 and 3 of SJGS, recovery of 50% of the net book value of those units, and the inclusion in retail rates of PVNGS Unit 3 as replacement power. The increase also reflects new infrastructure investments and declines in forecasted energy sales as a result ofresulting from PNM’s successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors. The new application includes severalPNM also proposed changes to rate design to establish fairbetter align electric rates with the actual costs to serve customers and equitable pricing acrossencourage continued energy efficiency while proposing a rate classesmechanism that eliminates the disincentives associated with energy efficiency and load management programs. In May 2017, PNM and several intervenors filed a stipulation that, subject to approval by the NMPRC, would reduce the requested non-fuel revenue increase to $62.3 million, with an initial increase of $32.3 million beginning January 1, 2018 and the remaining increase beginning January 1, 2019. Among

A - 2



other things, the revised stipulation proposed to reduce the ROE to 9.575% and to better align cost recoveryprovide a debt-only return on PNM’s investment in SCRs at Four Corners. Hearings on the revised stipulation were held in August 2017. On October 31, 2017, the Hearing Examiners to the NM 2016 Rate Case issued their Certification of Stipulation recommending approval of the agreed upon revised stipulation with cost causation. Newcertain modifications, including identifying PNM’s continuation in Four Corners as imprudent and recommending against PNM’s ability to collect a debt or equity return on certain investments in that facility. On December 20, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order partially adopting the Certification of Stipulation, which approved the requested non-fuel revenue increase of $62.3 million over two years, but including additional modifications to reflect the impact of federal tax reform in customer rates are expected to become effectivebeginning in 2018, rather than in 2019 as proposed in the third quarterrevised stipulation, and deferring further consideration regarding PNM’s prudence related to Four Corners to a future proceeding. On December 28, 2017, PNM filed a motion for rehearing asking the NMPRC to vacate the December 20, 2017 order and requesting oral argument. After rehearing, the NMPRC issued a new order partially adopting the Certification of 2016.Stipulation with certain modifications, which, after further clarification, allows PNM to collect a debt return, but not an equity return, on certain of PNM’s investments in Four Corners; defers further consideration regarding the prudency of PNM’s continued participation in Four Corners to PNM’s next general rate case; requires PNM to reduce the $62.3 million annual non-fuel revenue increase by $4.4 million; requires the annual impacts of federal tax reform, estimated to amount to $47.6 million, to be reflected in customer rates beginning in 2018; and requires 50% of the rate increase be implemented for service rendered (rather than for bills rendered as PNM had requested) on or after February 1, 2018 and the rest of the increase for service rendered on or after January 1, 2019. The order results in an annual non-fuel revenue increase of $10.3 million. On February 7, 2018, NEE filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court asking the court to review the NMPRC’s decisions in the NM 2016 Rate Case. The notice does not set forth the basis of the appeal, which, as required by the court’s rules, is to be filed by March 9, 2018. See Note 17 for additional information concerning this filing.17.

PNM filed an application in January 2012 forhas a NMPRC-approved rate rider to collect costs for renewable energy procurements incurred after December 31, 2010 that are not otherwise being collected in rates. The rider will terminate upon a final order in PNM’s next general rate case unless that order authorizes a continuation of the rider, which PNM requested in its current rate filing. As a separate component of the rider, ifIf PNM’s earned return on jurisdictional equity in a calendar year, adjusted for weather and other items not representative of normal operation, exceeded 10.5%exceeds the NMPRC-approved rate by 0.5%, the rider provides that PNM would refund the excess to customers during May through December of the following year. Through 2017, PNM’s earned return on jurisdictional equity didhas not exceed 10.5% in 2013, 2014, or 2015.exceeded the limitation. The NMPRC has also approved riders designed to allow PNM to bill and collect substantially all of fuel and purchased power costs and costs of approved energy efficiency initiatives.

FERC Regulated Wholesale Operations
In October 2010, PNM filed a notice with FERC
Rates charged to increase its wholesale electric transmission customers are based on a formula rate mechanism pursuant to which rates for all of PNM’s wholesale electric transmission service customers, which include other utilities, electric cooperatives,are calculated annually in accordance with an approved formula. The formula includes updating cost of service components, including investment in plant and entities that use PNM’s transmission system to transmit power at the wholesale level.  The proposed rates were implemented on June 1, 2011, subject to refund. On January 2, 2013, FERC approved a settlement among the parties providing for an increase in transmission service revenues of $2.9 million annually.
In December 2012, PNM filed a notice with FERC to increase its wholesale electric transmission rates for all of its transmission customers. The filing represents a formula-based rate as contemplated by the approved settlement in the case described above. On March 20, 2015, PNM along with five other parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was filed at FERC.

A- 2



No party has filed in opposition of the settlement. The settlement reflects a ROE of 10% and results in an annual increase of $1.3 million above the rates approved in the previous rate case. The FERC ALJ authorized the interim implementation of settled rates beginning on April 1, 2015, subject to refund. There is no required time frame for FERC to act upon a settlement. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding.

PNM has entered into firm-requirements wholesale contracts to provide electricity to various customers. These contracts contain both capacity charges and energy charges. Capacity charges are monthly payments for a commitment of resources to service the contract requirements. Energy charges are paymentsoperating expenses, based on the amount of electricity delivered to the customer and are intended to compensate for the variable costs incurred to provide the energy. The average billing demands forinformation contained in PNM’s firm-requirements wholesale customers aggregated approximately 62 MW in 2015. No firm-requirements customer of PNM accounted for more than 2.5% of PNM’s revenues for the year ended December 31, 2015.

In September 2011, PNMannual financial report filed with FERC, as well as including projected large transmission capital projects to increasebe placed into service in the following year. The projections included are subject to true-up in the formula rate for the following year. Certain items, including changes to return on equity and depreciation rates, require a separate filing to be made with FERC before being included in the formula rate.

The low natural gas price environment has resulted in market prices for electricpower being substantially lower that what PNM has been able to offer wholesale generation customers under the cost of service and ancillary services provided to NEC, PNM’s largest firm-requirements wholesale customer. The parties agreed to a settlement providing for an increase in rates of $5.3 million and an extension of the contract for 10 years through December 31, 2035. FERC approved the settlement in April 2013. On April 8, 2015, NEC filed a petition for a declaratory order requestingmodel that FERC find that NEC can purchase an unlimited amount of power and energy from third-party supplier(s) under the PSA.requires PNM intervened, requesting thatto use. Consequently, PNM requested FERC deny NEC’s petition. On October 29, 2015, PNM and NEC entered into and filed with FERC a settlement agreement that includes amendments to the PSA and related contracts, subject to FERC approval. Under the agreement, PNM would serve all of NEC’s load in 2016 at reduced demand and energy rates from those under the PSA. The PSA would terminate on December 31, 2016. In 2017, PNM would continue to serve 10 MW of NEC’s load under a short-term coordination tariff at a rate lower than provided under the PSA, but higher than prices currently available under short-term market rates. FERC approved the settlement on January 21, 2016. PNM anticipates that, in future general rate cases, assets and costs previously assigned to serve NEC will be reassigned, primarily to retail customers. In 2015 and 2014, monthly billing demand for power supplied to NEC averaged approximately 54 MW and 55 MW and revenues were $27.1 million and $28.4 million under the PSA.

PNM provided both energy and power services to Gallup, which was its second largest firm-requirements wholesale customer, under an electric service agreement that expired on June 30, 2014. PNM also provides electricity at wholesale to the City of Aztec, New Mexico under a contract that will expire on June 30, 2016. PNM’s recently filed general rate case discussed above includes a reallocation of costs among regulatory jurisdictions reflecting the termination of these contracts. See Results of Operations in MD&A and Note 17.  In 2014, PNM entered into a contract with the Jicarilla Apache Nation to provide electricity at wholesale through May 8, 2019, although the customer has the option to terminate the contract upon appropriate notice.

PNM’s current authorization under FERC regulation requires that revenue requirements for sales of electricity at wholesale are to be based on PNM’s costs of providing such service. In August 2014, PNM filed an application with FERC to allow PNMapproval to enter into arrangements to sell electricity at wholesale prices within PNM’s balancingbalance authority area using rates that are based on market conditions. In October 2015, FERC denied PNM’s request. Accordingly, PNM has decided to stop pursuing wholesale generation contracts.

Operational Information

Weather-normalized retail electric KWh sales decreased by 1.4%0.9% in 20152017 and 1.7%0.7% in 2014.2016. The system peak demands for retail and firm-requirements customers were as follows:

System Peak Demands
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(Megawatts)(Megawatts)
Summer1,889
 1,878
 2,008
1,843
 1,908
 1,889
Winter1,433
 1,471
 1,576
1,289
 1,376
 1,433

PNM holds long-term, non-exclusive franchise agreements for its electric retail operations, with varying expiration dates. These franchise agreements allow the utility to access public rights-of-way for placement of its electric facilities. Franchise

A - 3

Table of Contents


agreements have expired in some areas PNM serves, including Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, and Santa Fe. Because PNM remains obligated under New Mexico state law to provide service to customers in these areas, the expirations should not have a material adverse impact. The Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, and Santa Fe metropolitan areas accounted for 49.8%48.2%, 10.7%9.9%, and 9.9%9.5% of PNM’s 20152017 revenues and no other franchise area represents more than 5%. Although PNM is not required to collect or pay franchise fees in some areas it serves, the utility continues to collect and pay such fees in certain parts of its service territory, including Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, and Santa Fe.

A- 3

Table of Contents



As discussed in Note 16, the County Commission of Bernalillo County, New Mexico passed an ordinance onin January 28, 2014 that would require PNM and other utilities to enter into a use agreement and pay a yet-to-be-determined fee as a condition for installing, maintaining, and operating facilities on county rights-of-way. PNM and other utilities have filed complaints in federal and state courts challenging the validity of the ordinance. If the challenge to the ordinance is unsuccessful, PNM believes any fees paid pursuant to the ordinance would be considered franchise fees and would be recoverable from customers. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

PNM owns 3,199 circuit3,200 miles of electric transmission lines that interconnect with other utilities in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, and Utah. There has been little development of new bulk transmission facilities since 1985. PNM owns transmission capacity in an area of eastern New Mexico with large wind generation potential and in recent years. Therefore,years there has been substantial interest by developers of wind generation to interconnect to PNM’s transmission system is fully committed during peak hours for deliveryin this area. PNM plans to construct approximately $170 million of existingnew transmission facilities by 2020 to provide additional transmission service to deliver power from these generation resources with very little to no additional access available on a firm commitment basis. These factors resultcustomers in physical constraints on the systemNew Mexico and limit the ability to bring power into PNM’s service area from outside of New Mexico.California.

PNM also generates and sells electricity into the wholesale market. BecauseThrough December 31, 2017, PNM’s 134 MW share of Unit 3 at PVNGS currently iswas excluded from retail rates that unit’s power isand was being sold in the wholesale market and shareholders realize any earnings or losses. PNM has contracted to sell all of PVNGS Unit 3 output through 2017 at market price plus a premium.  Through hedging arrangements that are accounted for as economic hedges, PNM has established fixed rates for substantially all of these sales in 2016.market. In December 2015, the NMPRC approved PNM’s request to include PVNGS Unit 3 as a jurisdictional resource to serve New Mexico retail customers beginning in 2018 and also authorized PNM to acquire 65 MW of SJGS Unit 4 as part of the revised plan to comply with the regional haze requirements of the CAA.merchant plant. See Note 16.16 and Note 17. Shareholders realize any earnings or losses from generating resources that are not included in retail rates. In addition, to the PVNGS contracts, PNM also engages in activities to optimize its existing jurisdictional assets and long-term power agreements through spot market, hour-ahead, day-ahead, week-ahead, and other sales of any excess generation not required to fulfill retail load and contractual commitments. Through PNM’s FPPAC, 90% of the margins from these optimization sales arewere credited to retail customers through December 31, 2016, after which date 100% of the margins will beare credited to customers.

Use of Future Test Year (“FTY”)

Under New Mexico law, the NMPRC must set rates using the test period, including a FTY, that best reflects the conditions the utility will experience when new rates are anticipated to go into effect. In November 2015, the NMPRC clarified that FTY could begin up to 13 months after the filing of a rate case application. The NMPRC also must include certain construction work in progress (“CWIP”) for environmental improvement, generation, and transmission projects in rate base. These provisions are designed to promote more timely recovery of reasonable costs of providing utility service.

The use of a FTY should help PNM mitigate the adverse effects of regulatory lag, which is inherent when using a historical test year. Accordingly, the utility’s earnings should more closely reflect the rate of return allowed by the NMPRC. PNMR believes that achieving earnings that approximate its allowed rate of return is an important factor in attracting equity investors, as well as being considered favorably by credit rating agencies and financial analysts.

As discussed above, PNM’s current request for a general rate increase is based on a FTY period beginning October 1, 2015. As with any forward looking financial information, utilizing a FTY in a rate filing presents challenges that exist in the forecasting process.challenges. These include forecasts of both operating and capital expenditures that necessitate reliance on many assumptions concerning future conditions and operating results. In the rate making process, PNM’s assumptions are subject to challenge by regulators and intervenors who may assert different interpretations or assumptions.

Renewable Energy

The REA was enacted to encourage the development of renewable energy in New Mexico. The act establishes a mandatory RPS requiring a utility to acquire a renewable energy portfolio equal to 10% of retail electric sales by 2011, 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. The act provides for streamlined proceedings for approval of utilities’ renewable energy procurement plans, assures utilities recovery of costs incurred consistent with approved procurement plans, and requires the NMPRC to establish a RCT for the procurement of renewable resources to prevent excessive costs being added to rates. PNM files required renewable energy plans with the NMPRC annually and makes procurements consistent with the plans approved by the NMPRC. See Note 17.


A - 4

Table of Contents


TNMP

TNMP is a regulated utility operating and incorporated in the State of Texas. TNMP’s predecessor was organized in 1925. TNMP is incorporated in the State of Texas.


A- 4

Table of Contents


TNMP provides transmission and distribution services in Texas under the provisions of TECA and the Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act. TNMP is subject to traditional cost-of-service regulation with respect to rates and service under the jurisdiction of the PUCT and certain municipalities. TNMP’s transmission and distribution activities are solely within ERCOT, which is the independent system operator responsible for maintaining reliable operations for the bulk electric power supply system in most of Texas. Therefore, TNMP is not subject to traditional rate regulation by FERC. TNMP serves a market of small to medium sized communities, most of which have populations of less than 50,000. TNMP is the exclusive provider of transmission and distribution services in most areas it serves.

TNMP’s service territory consists of three non-contiguous areas. One portion of this territory extends from Lewisville, which is approximately 10 miles north of the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, eastward to municipalities near the Red River, and to communities north, west, and south of Fort Worth. The second portion of its service territory includes the area along the Texas Gulf Coast between Houston and Galveston, and the third portion includes areas of far west Texas between Midland and El Paso.

TNMP provides transmission and distribution services at regulated rates to various REPs that, in turn, provide retail electric service to consumers within TNMP’s service area. TNMP experienced increases in weather-normalized retail KWh sales of 2.6%1.2% in 20152017 and 3.2%3.0% in 2014.2016. As of December 31, 2015,2017, 101 active REPs receive transmission and distribution services from TNMP. In 2015,2017, the three largest REP customers of TNMP accounted for operating revenues of 16%, 13%11%, and 11%10%. No other customer accounted for more than 10% of revenues.

Regulatory Activities

In July 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement and authorized an AMS deployment plan that permits TNMP to collect $113.4 million in deployment costs through a surcharge over a 12-year period. TNMP began collecting the surcharge on August 11, 2011. Deployment2011 and deployment of smartadvanced meters began in September 20112011. TNMP completed its mass deployment of AMS in 2016 and is scheduled to be completed in 2016.has installed more than 242,000 advanced meters.

The PUCT approved interim adjustments to TNMP’s transmission rates of $2.9 million in March 2013, $2.8 million in September 2013, $2.9 million in March 2014, $4.2 million in September 2014, $4.4 million in March 2015, and $1.4 million in September 2015.2015, $4.3 million in March 2016, $1.8 million in September 2016, $4.8 million in March 2017, and $4.7 million in September 2017. On January 29, 2016,30, 2018, TNMP filed an application to further update its transmission rates, which would increase revenues by $4.3$0.6 million annually. The application is pending before the PUCT. TNMP plans to file a general rate case in May 2018 and is prohibited from filing additional interim adjustments to its transmission rates while the general rate case is in progress. See Note 17.

Franchise Agreements

TNMP holds long-term, non-exclusive franchise agreements for its electric transmission and distribution services. These agreements have varying expiration dates and some have expired. TNMP intends to negotiate and execute new or amended franchise agreements with municipalities where the agreements have expired or will be expiring. Since TNMP is the exclusive provider of transmission and distribution services in most areas that it serves, the need to renew or renegotiate franchise agreements should not have a material adverse impact. TNMP also earns revenues from service provided to facilities in its service area that lie outside the territorial jurisdiction of the municipalities with which TNMP has franchise agreements.

Corporate and Other

The Corporate and Other segment includes PNMR holding company activities, primarily related to corporate level debt and tothe activities of PNMR Services Company. PNMR Services Company provides corporate services through shared services agreements to PNMR and all of PNMR’s business units, including PNM and TNMP. These services are charged and billed at cost on a monthly basis to the business units. The activities of PNMR Development, NM Capital, and NMRD are also included in Corporate and Other.


A - 5

Table of Contents


SOURCES OF POWER
PNM
Generation Capacity

As of December 31, 2015,January 1, 2018, the total net generation capacity of facilities owned or leased by PNM was 2,4772,102 MW. PNM also obtains power under long-term PPAs for the power produced by Valencia, New Mexico Wind, which has a capacity of 204 MW, the output ofRed Mesa Wind, the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility, which currently has a capacity of 4 MW, and the power output of Red Mesa Wind, which has a capacity of 102 MW.NMRD-owned solar facility.


A- 5

Table of Contents


PNM’s capacity in electric generating facilities, which are owned, leased, or under PPAs, in commercial service as of December 31, 2015January 1, 2018 is:
      Generation
      Capacity
Type Name Location (MW)
Coal SJGS Waterflow, New Mexico 783562
Coal Four Corners Fruitland, New Mexico 200
Gas Reeves Station Albuquerque, New Mexico 154
Gas Afton (combined cycle) La Mesa, New Mexico 230
Gas Lordsburg Lordsburg, New Mexico 80
Gas Luna (combined cycle) Deming, New Mexico 185189
Gas/Oil Rio Bravo Albuquerque, New Mexico 138
Gas Valencia Belen, New Mexico 158
Gas La Luz Belen, New Mexico 40
Nuclear PVNGS Wintersburg, Arizona 402
Solar PNM-owned solar Fifteen sites in New Mexico 107
SolarNMRD-owned solarLos Lunas, New Mexico10
Wind New Mexico Wind House, New Mexico 204
Wind Red Mesa Wind Seboyeta, New Mexico 102
Geothermal Lightning Dock Geothermal Lordsburg, New Mexico 4
      2,7872,580

Fossil‑Fueled Plants

SJGS consistsis operated by PNM and, until December 2017, consisted of four units operated by PNM. Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 at SJGS have net rated capacities of 340 MW, 340 MW, 497 MW and 507 MW. SJGS Units 1 and 2 are owned on a 50% shared basis with Tucson. SJGS Unit 3 is owned 50% by PNM, 41.8% by SCPPA, and 8.2% by Tri‑State. SJGS Unit 4 is owned 38.457% by PNM, 28.8% by MSR, 10.04% by Anaheim, 8.475% by Farmington, 7.2% by Los Alamos, and 7.028% by UAMPS. Seeunits. As discussed in Note 16, for additional information about SJGS including the shutdown of Units 2 and 3 onwere retired in December 31, 2017 and the restructuring of the ownership interests in SJGS. Under the restructuring agreement, PNM would own 64.5% ofSJGS Unit 4 PNMR Development would own 12.8%were restructured as of Unit 4, and SCPPA, Tri-State, MSR, and Anaheim would no longer have any ownership interest in SJGS following the December 31, 2017 restructuring. However, PNMR anticipates that2017. The table below presents the rated capacities and ownership interests of each participant in each unit of SJGS before and after these events:
 Unit MW Capacity and Ownership Interests
 Prior to Restructuring After Restructuring
 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 1 Unit 4
Capacity (MW)340
 340
 497
 507
 340
 507
            
PNM (1)
50.000% 50.000% 50.000% 38.457% 50.000% 77.297%
Tucson50.000
 50.000
 
 
 50.000
 
SCPPA
 
 41.800
 
 
 
Tri-State
 
 8.200
 
 
 
MSR
 
 
 28.800
 
 
Anaheim
 
 
 10.040
 
 
Farmington
 
 
 8.475
 
 8.475
Los Alamos
 
 
 7.200
 
 7.200
UAMPS
 
 
 7.028
 
 7.028
Total100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

(1) After restructuring includes a 12.8% interest held as a merchant plant .

A - 6

Table of PNMR Development will be transferred to PNM, as authorized by the NMPRC, prior to the restructuring date.Contents



Four Corners Units 4 and 5 are 13% owned by PNM. These units are jointly owned with APS, an APS affiliate, SRP, Tucson, and EPETucson and are operated by APS. PNM had no ownership interest in Four Corners Units 1, 2, or 3, which were shutdownshut down by APS on December 30, 2013. The Four Corners plant site is leased from the Navajo Nation and is also subject to an easement from the federal government. APS, on behalf of the Four Corners participants, negotiated amendments to an existing facility lease with the Navajo Nation, which extends the Four Corners leasehold interest from 2016 to 2041. The Navajo Nation approved these amendments in March 2011. The effectiveness of the amendments also required the approval of the DOI, as did a related federal rights-of-way grant, which was received in July 2015. An affiliate of APS has announced it has agreed to acquireacquired the 7% interest offormerly owned by EPE which is anticipated to become effective inon July 7, 2016. APS is negotiating an agreement for the sale of that 7% interest toNTEC, an entity owned by the Navajo Nation, has the option to purchase the 7% interest. NTEC provided notice of its intent to exercise the option, but has not yet acquired the 7% interest. APS and NTEC are currently in discussions as to the future of the Navajo Nation.option transaction. See Note 16 for additional information about Four Corners.

PNM owns 100% of Reeves, Afton, Rio Bravo, Lordsburg, and La Luz and one-third of Luna. The remaining interests in Luna are owned equally by Tucson and Samchully Power & Utilities 1, LLC. Prior to July 17, 2014, when PNM closed on the purchase of Rio Bravo, PNM was entitled to the energy and capacity of Rio Bravo under a PPA. PNM is entitled to the entire output of Valencia under a PPA. Valencia is a variable interest entity and is consolidated by PNM as required by GAAP. Reeves, Lordsburg, Rio Bravo, La Luz, and Valencia are used primarily for peaking power and transmission support. SeeAs discussed in Note 9, for additional information about Rio BravoValencia is a variable interest entity and Valencia, including the potential purchase of 50% of Valencia.is consolidated by PNM as required by GAAP.

Nuclear Plant

PNM is participating in the three units of PVNGS, also known as the Arizona Nuclear Power Project, with APS (the operating agent), SRP, EPE, SCE, SCPPA, and the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles. PNM is entitled to 10.2%, including portions that are leased to PNM, of the power and energy generated by PVNGS, including portions that are leased to PNM.PVNGS. See Note 7 for additional in

A- 6

Table of Contents


formationinformation concerning the PVNGS leases, including the renewal of the four PVNGS Unit 1 leases and one of the PVNGS Unit 2 leases and the purchase of the assets underlying the other three Unit 2 leases. Following the January 15, 2016 exercise of the Unit 2 purchase options,Currently, PNM has ownership interests of 2.3% in Unit 1, 9.4% in Unit 2, and 10.2% in Unit 3 and has leasehold interests of 7.9% in Unit 1 and 0.8% in Unit 2. The lease payments for the leased portions of PVNGS are recovered through retail rates approved by the NMPRC. See Note 16 for information on other PVNGS matters, including the NMPRC’s approval of PNM’s proposalfor PNM to include PVNGS Unit 3 as a jurisdictional resource to serve New Mexico retail customers.

On March 11, 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake occurred offcustomers beginning in 2018 and Note 17 for information concerning the northeastern coast of Japan. The earthquake produced tsunamis that caused significant damage to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in Japan. Following these events, the NRC established a task force to conduct a systematic and methodical review of NRC processes and regulations to determine whether the agency should make additional improvements to its regulatory system. In March 2012, the NRC issued the first regulatory requirements based on the recommendationsNMPRC’s treatment of the task force. With respect to PVNGS, the NRC issued two orders requiring safety enhancements regarding: (1) mitigation strategies to respond to extreme natural events resultingpurchased assets and extended leases in the loss of power at plants; and (2) enhancement of spent fuel pool instrumentation. The NRC has issued a number of guidance documents regarding implementation of these requirements. PVNGS has met the NRC’s imposed deadlines for installation of equipment to address these requirements, but has minor additional work to perform in 2016. PVNGS has spent approximately $125 million on capital enhancements as of December 31,PNM’s NM 2015 (PNM’s share is 10.2%).Rate Case.

Solar

PNM completed its first majorseveral utility-owned renewable energy project aggregating 22 MW when five utility-scale solar PV facilities in New Mexico went online in 2011.between 2011 and 2015. In addition, PNM also completed its solar-storage demonstration project, in Albuquerque, which has a generation capacity of 0.5 MW and is included in the above table. In 2013,MW. At December 31, 2017, PNM completed the installationowns a total of an additional 21.5107 MW of utility-ownedsolar facilities. PNMR Development began construction of 30 MW of new solar capacity at four sites, including expansionin 2017. In December 2017, interest in that 30 MW of solar capacity at twowas transferred to NMRD, which is 50% owned by PNMR Development. As discussed in Note 17, PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan includes the addition of the existing sites. In 2014, PNM completed construction of an additional 2350 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities at three additional sites.to be constructed in 2018 and 2019. In 2015,January 2018, the United States imposed a 30% tariff on certain imported solar panels. PNM completed constructionis currently unable to predict the impact, if any, of an additional 40 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities at four additional sites.this tariff on these projects. The NMPRC has approved a voluntary tariff that allows PNM retail customers to buy renewable electricity for a small monthly premium. Power from 11.5 MW of PNM’s solar capacity is used to service load under the voluntary tariff.

Plant Operating Statistics

Equivalent availability of PNM’s major base-load generating stations was:
Plant Operator 2015 2014 2013 Operator 2017 2016 2015
SJGS PNM 67.4% 76.5% 77.6% PNM 84.1% 76.5% 67.4%
Four Corners APS 77.8% 68.1% 72.9% APS 50.6% 62.0% 77.8%
PVNGS APS 94.2% 91.8% 89.4% APS 91.9% 91.4% 94.2%

Joint Projects

SJGS, PVNGS, Four Corners, and Luna are joint projects each owned or leased by several different entities. Some participants in the joint projects are investor-owned entities, while others are privately, municipally, or co-operatively owned. Furthermore, participants in SJGS have varying percentage interests in different generating units within the project. The primary operating or participation agreements for the joint projects expire in July 20162022 for SJGS, July 2041 for Four Corners, July 2022 for SJGS, December 2046 for Luna, and November 2047 for PVNGS. The Four Corners owners executed amendments to the agreements governing the operations of Four Corners that would extend those agreements until July 2041. The amendments are expected to become effective upon APS’ purchase of the ownership interest of EPE, which is anticipated to occur in July 2016. In addition, SJGS and Four Corners are coal-fired generating plants that obtain their coal

A - 7

Table of Contents


requirements from mines near the plants. A newAn agreement for coal supply for SJGS, which expires on June 30, 2022, became effective at 11:59 PM on January 31, 2016. At that same time, an agreement to restructure the ownership in SJGS became effective. ThatThe restructuring agreement providesprovided for certain existing participants in SJGS to exit ownership at December 31, 2017, atby which time two of the four SJGS units willUnits 2 and 3 were required to be permanently shutdown. In December 2013, the coal supply arrangement for Four Corners was extended through 2031.shut down. See Note 16 for a discussion of the restructuring of SJGS ownership and developments with respect toownership. In December 2013, a coal supply arrangement for Four Corners.Corners that runs through July 6, 2031 was executed. As described above, Four Corners is situated on land under a lease from the Navajo Nation. Portions of PNM’s interests in PVNGS Units 1 and 2 are leased.held under leases. See Nuclear Plant above and Note 7 regarding PNM’s actions related to these leases.

It is possible that other participants in the joint projects have circumstances and objectives that have changed from those existing at the time of becoming participants. The status of these joint projects is further complicated by the uncertainty surrounding the form of potential legislation and/or regulation of CCBs, GHG, and other air emissions, and CCBs, as well as the impacts of the costs of compliance and operational viability of all or certain units within the joint proj

A- 7

Table of Contents


ects.projects. It is unclear how these factors will enter into discussion and negotiations concerning the status of the joint projects as the expiration of basic operational agreements approaches.

PNM’s 2017 IRP, which was filed on July 3, 2017, indicates that it would be cost beneficial to PNM’s customers for PNM to retire its SJGS capacity in 2022 and for PNM to exit its ownership interest in Four Corners in 2031. See additional discussion of PNM’s 2017 IRP and PNM’s regulatory recovery of certain investments in Four Corners under the NM 2016 Rate Case, in Note 17. PNM can provide no assurance that its participation in the joint projects will continue in the manner that currently exists.

PPAs

In addition to generating its own power, PNM purchases power under long-term PPAs. PNM also purchases power in the forward, day-ahead, and real-time markets.

In 2002, PNM entered into ana 25-year agreement with FPL to developpurchase all of the power and RECs generated by New Mexico Wind. PNM began receiving power from the project in June 2003. FPL owns and operates New Mexico Wind, which currently consists of 136 wind-powered turbines having an aggregate capacity of 204 MW on a site in eastern New Mexico. PNM has a contract to purchase all the power and RECs generated by New Mexico Wind for 25 years. Power from New Mexico Wind is used to service load under the voluntary tariff discussed above and as part of PNM’s electric supply mix for meeting retail load.

PNMalso has a 20-year agreement to purchase energy and RECs from the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility built near Lordsburg. The facility, which is the first geothermal project for the PNM system, began providing limited power to PNM on January 1, 2014.Lordsburg, New Mexico. The current capacity of the facility is 4 MWMW. PNM’s 2018 renewable plan filing, which was approved by the NMPRC on November 15, 2017, included requests to procure an additional 80 GWh in 2019 and future expansion may result105 GWh in up to 9 MW2020 from a re-powering of generation capacity.New Mexico Wind and an additional 55 GWh in 2019 and 77 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal. The PPAs now expire in 2044 for New Mexico Wind and 2042 for Lightning Dock Geothermal.

In June 2013, PNM entered into a 20 year20-year PPA with Red Mesa Wind, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, to purchase all of the power and RECs produced by Red Mesa Wind beginning on January 1, 2015. Red Mesa Wind, LLC owns and operates the facility, which consists of 64 wind-powered turbines having an aggregate capacity of 102 MW on a site west of Albuquerque.

PNM and Tri-State have a hazard sharing agreement, which expires on May 31, 2022. Under this agreement, each party sells the other party 100 MW of capacity and energy from a designated generation resource on a unit contingent basis, subject to certain performance guarantees.  Both the purchases and sales are made at the same market index price.  This agreement serves to reduce the magnitude of each party’s single largest generating hazard and assists in enhancing the reliability and efficiency of their respective operations. See Note 17 for details related to purchases and sales. Since PNM purchases and sells approximately the same amount of energy under the hazard sharing agreement, it is not included as a capacity resource in the above table.

As discussed in Note 1, PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners created NMRD on September 22, 2017 to pursue the acquisition, development, and ownership of renewable energy generation projects primarily in the State of New Mexico. PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners each have a 50% ownership interest in NMRD, a limited liability company. In December 2017, PNMR Development made a contribution to NMRD of its interest in three 10 MW solar facilities and assigned its interests in several agreements related to those facilities to NMRD. AEP OnSite Partners made a cash contribution to NMRD equal to 50% of the value of the 30 MW solar capacity, which cash was then distributed from NMRD to PNMR Development.  Power from the 30 MWs of solar capacity will be sold to PNM under 25-year PPAs to supply renewable energy to a new data center being constructed in PNM’s service territory by Facebook, Inc. (Note 17). At January 1, 2018, the first 10 MW of solar capacity was in commercial operation and the remaining capacity is expected to begin commercial operation by mid-2018.

In late 2017, PNM entered into three separate 25-year PPAs to purchase renewable energy and RECs to be used by PNM to supply additional renewable power to Facebook, Inc. These PPAs are subject to NMPRC approval and PNM made a filing requesting approval on January 17, 2018 (Note 17). These PPAs include the purchase of the power and RECs from:

A - 8

Table of Contents



Casa Mesa Wind, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC., which is expected to be located near House, New Mexico, have a total capacity of 50 MW, and be operational at December 31, 2018
A 166 MW portion of the La Joya Wind Project, owned by Avangrid Renewables, LLC, which is expected to be located near Estancia, New Mexico and be operational in November 2020
Route 66 Solar Energy Center, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC., which is expected to be located west of Albuquerque, New Mexico, have a total capacity of 50 MW, and be operational in December 2021

A summary of purchased power, excluding Rio Bravo and Valencia, is as follows:
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
Purchased under long-term PPAs          
MWh599,562
 492,906
 490,539
1,574,716
 1,211,852
 599,562
Cost per MWh$22.18
 $27.82
 $27.25
$29.02
 $28.26
 $22.18
Other purchased power          
Total MWh729,895
 1,023,744
 1,061,514
445,464
 502,893
 729,895
Cost per MWh$28.94
 $40.30
 $35.64
$31.74
 $27.78
 $28.94
TNMP
TNMP provides only transmission and distribution services and does not sell power.

FUEL AND WATER SUPPLY
PNM
The percentages (on the basis of KWh) of PNM’s generation of electricity, (on the basis of KWh), including Valencia, and Rio Bravo, fueled by coal, nuclear fuel, and gas and oil, and the average costs to PNM of those fuels per MMBTU were as follows:
 Coal Nuclear Gas and Oil
 
Percent of
Generation
 
Average
Cost
 
Percent of
Generation
 
Average
Cost
 
Percent of
Generation
 
Average
Cost
201553.3% $2.88
 32.6% $0.70
 12.6% $2.91
201456.7% $3.00
 32.0% $0.83
 10.3% $4.26
201356.8% $2.62
 30.4% $0.88
 12.2% $4.12
 Coal Nuclear Gas and Oil
 
Percent of
Generation
 
Average
Cost
 
Percent of
Generation
 
Average
Cost
 
Percent of
Generation
 
Average
Cost
201756.5% $2.16
 31.9% $0.64
 9.2% $3.02
201654.1% $2.34
 31.6% $0.71
 11.8% $2.80
201553.3% $2.88
 32.6% $0.70
 12.6% $2.91

In 2017, 2016, and 2015, 2014, and 2013, 1.5%2.4%, 1.0%2.5%, and 0.6%1.5% of PNM’s generation was from utility ownedutility-owned solar, which has no fuel cost. In December 2017, SJGS Units 2 and 3 were retired and PNM assumed a greater interest in SJGS Unit 4, which results in a lower percentage of PNM’s electric generation capacity being fueled by coal. The generation mix for 20162018 is expected to be 57.1%44.3% coal, 30.7%29.4% nuclear, 9.5%23.8% gas and oil, and 2.7% utility owned2.5% utility-owned solar. Due to locally available natural gas and oil supplies, the utilization of locally available coal deposits, and the generally adequate

A- 8

Table of Contents


supply of nuclear fuel, PNM believes that adequate sources of fuel are available for its generating stations into the foreseeable future. See Sources of Power – PNM – PPAs for information concerning the cost of purchased power. PNM recovers substantially all of it fuel and purchased power costs through the FPPAC.

Coal

A new coal supply contract for SJGS, which expires on June 30, 2022, became effective at 11:59 PM on January 31, 2016. Substantially all of the benefits of lower coal pricing under the new contract will beare being passed through to PNM’s customers under the FPPAC. Coal supply has not been arranged for periods after the existing contract expires. PNM believes there is adequate availability of coal resources to continue to operate SJGS. In 2018 and before entering into a binding agreement for post-2022 coal supply for SJGS, although an extended or new contract could resultPNM must file its position in higher prices. a NMPRC case to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after mid-2022.


A - 9

Table of Contents


In late December 2013, a new fifteen-year coal supply contract for Four Corners, beginningwhich began in July 2016, was executed. Coal costs are anticipated to increaseThe average coal price per ton under the new contract was approximately 40%51% higher in the first year oftwelve months ended June 30, 2017 than in the new contract.twelve months ended June 30, 2016, excluding disputed amounts discussed in Note 16. The contract provides for pricing adjustments over its term based on economic indices.

See Note 16 for additional information about PNM’s coal supply. As discussed in Note 17, PNM’s 2017 IRP indicated retiring PNM’s remaining interest in SJGS in 2022 after the expiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements and exiting ownership in Four Corners after the end of its current coal supply agreement in 2031 would provide long-term cost savings to PNM’s customers.
Natural Gas
The natural gas used as fuel for the electric generating plants is procured on the open market and delivered by third party transportation providers. The supply of natural gas can be subject to disruptions due to extreme weather events and/or pipeline or facility outages. PNM has contracted for firm gas transmission capacity to minimize the potential for disruptions due to extreme weather events. Certain of PNM’s natural gas plants are generally used as peaking resources that are highly relied upon during periods of extreme weather, which also may be the times natural gas has the highest demand from other users. It is likely PNM’s reliance on its natural gas generating resources will increase with the December 2017 retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3, which will increase PNM’s exposure to fluctuations in natural gas prices although substantially all gas costs are recovered through the FPPAC.
Nuclear Fuel and Waste
PNM is one of several participants in PVNGS. The PVNGS participants are continually identifying their future nuclear fuel resource needs and negotiating arrangements to fill those needs. The PVNGSPVNG participants have contracted for all100% of PVNGS’s requirements for uranium concentrates through 2023 and conversion services through 2018 and 45%50% of its requirements for 2024 and 2025. Additionally, PVNGS has contracts in 2019-2025.various phases of negotiation to procure an additional 1.5 years supply of uranium concentrates, which would result in 100% of uranium concentrate requirements being assured through 2026. The PVNGS participants have also contracted for 100% of PVNGS’sthe requirements for conversion services through 2021 and 46% of its requirements for 2022 through 2025. Additional contracts are being negotiated for 4.3 years supply of conversion services, which would result in 100% of those services being assured through 2027. The PVNGS participants have also contracted for 100% of the requirements for enrichment services through 2020 and 20% of its enrichment services for 2021 through 2026. Additionally, PVNGS has several contracts in negotiation to procure an additional 4.3 years supply of enrichment services, which would result in 100% of those services being assured through 2021, 90% in 2022 and 80% in 2023 through 2026. All of PVNGS’s fuel assembly fabrication services are contracted through 2022.2024.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required the DOE to begin to accept, transport, and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste generated by the nation’s nuclear power plants by 1998. The DOE’s obligations are reflected in a contract with each nuclear power plant. The DOE failed to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel by 1998. APS (on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS participants) has pursued legal actions.actions for which settlements were reached. See Note 16 for information concerning these actions.
The DOE had planned to meet its disposal obligations by designing, licensing, constructing, and operating a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In March 2010, the DOE filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice its Yucca Mountain construction authorization application that was pending before the NRC. Several interested parties have intervened in the NRC proceeding. Additionally, a number of interested parties have filed a variety of lawsuits in different jurisdictions around the country challenging the DOE’s authority to withdraw the Yucca Mountain construction authorization application. None of these lawsuits has been conclusively decided by the courts. However, in August 2013, the D.C.DC Circuit ordered the NRC to resume its review of the application with available appropriated funds.

On October 16, 2014, the NRC issued Volume 3 of the safety evaluation report developed as part of the Yucca Mountain construction authorization application. This volume addresses repository safety after permanent closure, and its issuance is a key milestone in the Yucca Mountain licensing process. Volume 3 contains the NRC staff’s finding that the DOE’s repository design meets the requirements that apply after the repository is permanently closed, including but not limited to the post-closure performance objectives in NRC’s regulations. On December 18, 2014, the NRC issued Volume 4 of the safety evaluation report developed as part of the Yucca Mountain construction authorization application. This volume covers administrative and programmatic requirements for the repository. Itrepository and documents the staff’s evaluation of whether the DOE’s research and development and performance confirmation programs, as well as other administrative controls and systems, meet applicable NRC requirements. Volume 4 contains the staff’s finding that most administrative and programmatic requirements in NRC regulations are met, except

A - 10

Table of Contents


for certain requirements relating to ownership of land and water rights. Publication of Volumes 3 and 4 does not signal whether or when the NRC might authorize construction of the repository.
All spent nuclear fuel from PVNGS is being stored on-site. PVNGS has sufficient capacity at its on-site ISFSI to store all of the nuclear fuel that will be irradiated during the initial operating license periods, which end in November 2027. Additionally, PVNGS has sufficient capacity at its on-site ISFSI to store a portion of the fuel that will be irradiated during the extended license periods, which end in November 2047. If uncertainties regarding the United States government’s obligation to accept and store spent fuel are not favorably resolved, the PVNGS participants will evaluate alternative storage solutions. These may obviate the need to expand the ISFSI to accommodate all of the fuel that will be irradiated during the extended license periods.

A- 9

Table of Contents


Water Supply

See Note 16 for information about PNM’s water supply.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Electric utilities are subject to stringent laws and regulations for protection of the environment by local, state, federal, and tribal authorities. In addition, PVNGS is subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC, which has the authority to issue permits and licenses and to regulate nuclear facilities in order to protect the health and safety of the public from radioactive hazards and to conduct environmental reviews. The liabilities under these laws and regulations can be material. In some instances, liabilities may be imposed without regard to fault, or may be imposed for past acts, whether or not such acts were lawful at the time they occurred. The construction expenditure projection (Note 14) includes the environmental upgrades at SJGS and Four Corners discussed in Note 16 which aggregate $46.9of $7.9 million in 2016 and $44.8 million in 2017 through 2020.2018. See MD&A – Other Issues Facing the Company – Climate Change Issues for information on GHG. In addition, Note 16 contains information related to the following matters, incorporated in this item by reference:

PVNGS Decommissioning Funding
Nuclear Spent Fuel and Waste Disposal
Environmental Matters under the caption “The Clean Air Act”
Four Corners Coal Mine
WEG v. OSM NEPA Lawsuit
Navajo Nation Environmental Issues
Cooling Water Intake Structures
Effluent Limitation Guidelines
Santa Fe Generating Station
��
Environmental Matters under the caption “Coal Combustion Byproducts Waste Disposal”
Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAPs”) Rulemaking
Environmental Matters under the caption “Coal Supply”

COMPETITION

Regulated utilities are generally not subject to competition from other utilities in areas that are under the jurisdiction of state regulatory commissions. In New Mexico, PNM does not have direct competition for services provided to its retail electric customers. In Texas, TNMP is not currently in any direct retail competition with any other regulated electric utility. However, PNM and TNMP are subject to customer conservation and energy efficiency activities, as well as initiatives to utilize alternative energy sources, including self-generation, or otherwise bypass the PNM and TNMP systems.

PNM is subject to varying degrees of competition in certain territories adjacent to or within the areas it serves. This competition comes from other utilities in its region as well as rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities.  PNM is involved in the generation and sale of electricity into the wholesale market.  Itmarket although PNM has decided to stop pursuing wholesale generation contracts.  PNM is subject to competition from regional utilities and merchant power suppliers with similar opportunities to generate and sell energy at market-based prices and larger trading entities that do not own or operate generating assets.


A - 11

Table of Contents


EMPLOYEES
The following table sets forth the number of employees of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP as of December 31, 20152017:
PNMR PNM TNMPPNMR PNM TNMP
Corporate (1)
437
 
 
396
 
 
PNM1,074
 1,074
 
938
 938
 
TNMP357
 
 357
365
 
 365
Total1,868
 1,074
 357
1,699
 938
 365

(1)Represents employees of PNMR Services Company.

A- 10

Table of Contents


As of December 31, 20152017, PNM had 561495 employees in its power plant and operations areas that are currently covered by a collective bargaining agreement with the IBEW Local 611 that is in effect from December 5, 2015 through April 30, 2020. As of December 31, 2017, TNMP had 198 employees represented by IBEW Local 66 covered by a collective bargaining agreement that is in effect through August 31, 2019. The wages and benefits for all PNM and TNMP employees who are members of the IBEW are typically included in the rates charged to electric customers and consumers, subject to approval of the NMPRC.
As of December 31, 2015, TNMP had 185 employees represented by IBEW Local 66. The parties have a collective bargaining agreement that is in effect from March 9, 2015 through September 9, 2016.NMPRC and PUCT.

DISCLOSURE REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

Statements made in this filing that relate to future events or PNMR’s, PNM’s, or TNMP’s expectations, projections, estimates, intentions, goals, targets, and strategies are made pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Readers are cautioned that all forward-looking statements are based upon current expectations and estimates. PNMR, PNM, and TNMP assume no obligation to update this information.
 
Because actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements, PNMR, PNM, and TNMP caution readers not to place undue reliance on these statements. PNMR’s, PNM’s, and TNMP’s business, financial condition, cash flows, and operating results are influenced by many factors, which are often beyond their control, that can cause actual results to differ from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. These factors include:

The ability of PNM and TNMP to recover costs and earn allowed returns in regulated jurisdictions, including the pending application for a retail rate increase beforeimpacts of the NMPRC orders in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and NM 2016 Rate Case, appeals of those orders, the deferral of the issue of PNM’s prudence of continuation of participation in Four Corners to PNM’s next rate case and recovery of PNM’s investments in that plant, and any actions resulting from PNM’s 2017 IRP and the impact on service levels for PNM customers if the ultimate outcomes do not provide for the recovery of costs of operating and capital expenditures, as well as other impacts of federal or state regulatory and judicial actions
StateThe ability of the Company to successfully forecast and federal regulation or legislation relating to environmental matters,manage its operating and capital expenditures, including aligning expenditures with the resultant costs of compliance, and other impacts on the operations and economic viability of PNM’s generating plants
Physical and operational risks related to climate change and potential financial risks resulting from climate change litigation and legislative and regulatory efforts to limit GHG, including the Clean Power Plan
Uncertainty surrounding the status of PNM’s participation in jointly-owned generation projectsrevenue levels resulting from the scheduled expiration of the operational agreements for SJGSultimate outcomes in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and Four Corners, as well as the fuel supply agreement for SJGS,NM 2016 Rate Case, including theappeals, and TNMP’s rate case anticipated to be filed in May 2018 required NMPRC filing to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customersand supporting forecasts utilized in future test year rate proceedings

A- 11

Table of Contents


The impacts on the electricity usage of customers and consumers due to performance of state, regional, and national economies, mandatory energy efficiency measures, weather, seasonality, alternative sources of power, and other changes in supply and demand
The abilityUncertainty surrounding the status of PNM’s participation in jointly-owned generation projects, including the 2022 scheduled expiration of the Company to successfully forecastoperational and manage its operating and capital expenditures
Uncertainty surrounding counterparty credit risk, including financial support provided to facilitate the new coalfuel supply and ownership restructuring atagreements for SJGS, as well as obligationsthe 2018 required NMPRC filing to provide additional collateraldetermine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers beyond mid-2022 and any actions resulting from PNM’s 2017 IRP, including regulatory recovery of undepreciated investments in support of required reclamation bondsthe event the NMPRC orders generating facilities to be retired before currently estimated
Uncertainty regarding the requirements and related costs of decommissioning power plants and reclamation of coal mines supplying certain power plants, as well as the ability to recover those costs from customers, including the potential impacts of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case and NM 2016 Rate Case, appeals of those orders, and PNM’s 2017 IRP
Uncertainty regarding what actions PNM may take with respect to the generating capacity in PVNGS Units 1 and 2, which is under lease, at the expiration of the lease terms in 2023 and 2024, as well as the related treatment of the NMPRC for ratemaking purposes
The Company’s ability to access the financial markets in order to provide financing to repay or refinance debt as it comes due, as well as for ongoing operations and construction expenditures, including disruptions in the capital or credit markets, actions by ratings agencies, and fluctuations in interest rates, including any negative impacts that could result from the ultimate outcome in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and NM 2016 Rate Case, including appeals

A - 12

Table of Contents


The potential unavailability of cash from PNMR’s subsidiaries due to regulatory, statutory, or contractual restrictions or subsidiary earnings or cash flows
State and federal regulation or legislation relating to environmental matters, the resultant costs of compliance, and other impacts on the operations and economic viability of PNM’s generating plants
State and federal regulatory, legislative, executive, and judicial decisions and actions on ratemaking, tax, including the impacts and related uncertainties of tax reform enacted in 2017, and other matters
Risks related to climate change, including potential financial risks resulting from climate change litigation and legislative and regulatory efforts to limit GHG
Uncertainty surrounding counterparty credit risk, including financial support provided to facilitate the coal supply and ownership restructuring at SJGS
The performance of generating units, transmission systems, and distribution systems, which could be negatively affected by operational issues, fuel quality, unplanned outages, extreme weather conditions, terrorism, cybersecurity breaches, and other catastrophic events
Employee workforce factors, including cost control efforts and issues arising out of collective bargaining agreements and labor negotiations with union employees
Variability of prices and volatility and liquidity in the wholesale power and natural gas markets
Changes in price and availability of fuel and water supplies, including the ability of the mines supplying coal to PNM’s coal-fired generating units and the companies involved in supplying nuclear fuel to provide adequate quantities of fuel
The risks associated with completion of generation, transmission, distribution, and other projects
State and federal regulatory, legislative, and judicial decisions and actions on ratemaking, tax, and other matters
Regulatory, financial, and operational risks inherent in the operation of nuclear facilities, including spent fuel disposal uncertainties
The Company’s ability to access the financial markets, including disruptions in the credit markets, actions by ratings agencies, and fluctuations in interest rates
The potential unavailability of cash from PNMR’s subsidiaries due to regulatory, statutory, or contractual restrictions
The risk that FERC rulemakings or lack of additional capacity during peak hours may negatively impact the operation of PNM’s transmission system
The impacts of decreases in the values of marketable equity securities maintained in trusts to provide for decommissioning, reclamation, pension benefits, and other postretirement benefits,
Employee workforce factors, including issues arising out of collective bargaining agreements and labor negotiations with union employeespotential increased volatility resulting from international developments
The effectiveness of risk management regarding commodity transactions and counterparty risk
The outcome of legal proceedings, including the extent of insurance coverage
Changes in applicable accounting principles or policies

For information about the risks associated with the use of derivative financial instruments see Part II, Item 7A. “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

SECURITIES ACT DISCLAIMER
Certain securities described in this report have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or any state securities laws and may not be reoffered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and applicable state securities laws. This Form 10-K does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. 

ITEM 1A.    RISK FACTORS
 
The business and financial results of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond their control, including those set forth below and in MD&A, Note 16, and Note 17. For other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated in any forward-looking statement contained in this report, see Disclosure Regarding Forward Looking Statements in Item 1. Business. TNMP provides transmission and distribution services to REPs that provide electric service to consumers in TNMP’s service territories. References to customers in the risk factors discussed below also encompass the customers of these REPs who are the ultimate consumers of electricity transmitted and distributed through TNMP’s facilities.
 
Regulatory Factors
 
The profitability of PNMR’s utilities depends on being able to recover their costs through regulated rates and earn a fair return on invested capital.capital, including investments in its generating plants. PNM and TNMP are in a period of significant capital expenditures.expenditures, including costs of replacing generating capacity as coal-fired plants are retired. While increased capital investments and other costs are placing upward pressure on rates, energy efficiency initiatives and a sluggish New Mexico economy are reducing usage by customers.
 

A- 12A - 13

Table of Contents


The rates PNM charges its customers are regulated by the NMPRC and FERC. TNMP is regulated by the PUCT. The Company is in a period requiring significant capital investment and is projecting total construction expenditures for the years 2016-20202018-2022 to be $2,037.0$2,712.1 million. See Note 14. PNM and TNMP anticipate a trend toward increasing costs, for which it will have to seek regulatory recovery. These costs include or are related to:

NewCosts of asset construction related tofor generation, transmission, and distribution systems necessary to provide electric service, including costs ofnew generation capacityand transmission resources, as well as the cost to replace the early retirement of SJGS Units 2remove and 3 as part of compliance with the regional haze provisions of the CAA (Note 16)retire existing assets
Environmental compliance expenditures
The regulatory mandate to acquire power from renewable resources
Increased regulation related to nuclear safety
Increased interest costs to finance capital investments
Depreciation
 
At the same time costs are increasing, there are factors placing downward pressures on the demand for power, thereby reducing load growth and customer usage. These factors include:

Changing customer behaviors, including increased emphasis on energy efficiency measures and utilization of alternative sources of power
AdverseRate design that is not driven by economics, which could influence customer behavior
Unfavorable economic conditions
Reductions in costs of self-generation energy efficientresources and energy efficiency technology
Reduced new sources of demand
Unpredictable weather patterns

In 20152017 and 2014,2016, PNM experienced decreases in weather-normalized retail sales of 1.4%0.9% and 1.7%0.7%. The sales decreases reflect a continued sluggish economy in New Mexico. In particular,However, economic conditions in Albuquerque appear to have stabilized. The Albuquerque metro area is showing employment growth, although it continues to be lower than the Albuquerque metropolitan area has lagged the nation in economic recovery.national average. The economy in New Mexico continues to have mixed indicators. New Mexico’s overall economy continues toindicators and experience softness that is driven primarily by low oil and natural gas prices. Although PNM does not serve the regions of the state that produce oil and gas, it is anticipated that the impacts of layoffs and the decrease in state royalty revenues will further soften the economies in PNM’s service territory to some degree, particularly in the Albuquerque metro area and Santa Fe, as the state deals with budget shortfalls. In Texas, the drop in oil prices has impacted the economy, particularly in the Houston area, although it remains relatively strong.softness.

The combination of costs increasing relatively rapidly and the slowing of customer usage places upward pressure on the per unit prices that must be charged to recover costs. This upward pressure on unit prices could result in additional efforts by customers to reduce consumption through energy efficiency or to pursue self-generation or other alternative sources of power. Without timely cost recovery and the authorization to earn a reasonable return on invested capital, the Company’s liquidity and results of operations could be negatively impacted.
  
Under New Mexico law, utilities may propose the use of a future test year (“FTY”) in establishing rates. As with any forward looking financial information, a future test yearFTY presents challenges that are inherent in the forecasting process. Forecasts of both operating and capital expenditures necessitate reliance on many assumptions concerning future conditions and operating results. Accordingly, if rate requests based on a future test yearFTY cannot be successfully supported, cash flows and results of operations may be negatively impacted. This could result from not being able to withstand challenges from regulators and intervenors regarding the utility’s capability to make reasonable forecasts.

As discussed in Note 17, PNM filed an application for a general rate increase in December 2014, which the NMPRC dismissed in May 2015, based on the Hearing Examiners recommendation, which cited procedural defects in the filing. In August 2015, PNM filed a new application (the “NM 2015 Rate Case”) with the NMPRC for a $123.5 million general rate increase, in August 27, 2015.including base non-fuel revenues of $121.5 million. The primary drivers of PNM’s identified revenue deficiency arewere infrastructure investments and the recovery of those investment dollars, including depreciation based on an updated depreciation study, and declines in forecasted energy sales as a result of PNM’s successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors. The new application includes several proposed changes to rate design, a revenue decoupling pilot program, a re-allocationNMPRC issued an order authorizing an increase in non-fuel revenues of revenue among PNM’s customer classes, a new economic development rate, and continuation of PNM’s renewable energy rider. PNM requested that the proposed new rates become$61.2 million effective beginning in JulyOctober 2016. PNM believes that all of the capital costs proposed to be recovered in the rate case should be approved by the NMPRC. However, certain intervenors have proposed the disallowance or only partialThe NMPRC disallowed recovery of PNM’s capital investment in BDT equipment installed on SJGS Units 1 and 4, which is required by the NSR permit for SJGS (Note 16), and disallowance of all or a portion of the acquisition costs for PNM’s January 15, 2016 purchase of 6464.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2, which were previously leased to PNM.PNM, as well as the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period that capacity was leased. PNM filed an appeal of these disallowances with the NM Supreme Court. Other parties to that rate case have filed cross-appeals to PNM’s appeal in order to appeal other decisions of the NMPRC regarding issues in the rate case. On October 30, 2017, the NM Supreme Court heard oral argument on the case, but has not yet rendered a decision on the appealed matters and there is no required time frame for a decision to be issued.

In December 2016, PNM filed a request (the “NM 2016 Rate Case”) for a general increase in rates of $99.2 million. The NMPRC’s designated Hearing Exaprimary drivers of PNM’s identified revenue deficiency were implementation of the plan for SJGS to comply with the CAA,

A- 13A - 14

Table of Contents


minerincluding the shutdown of Units 2 and 3 of SJGS, recovery of 50% of the net book value of those units, and the inclusion in retail rates of PVNGS Unit 3 as replacement power (Note 16). The requested increase also reflected new infrastructure investments, including the installation of SCRs at Four Corners, and declines in forecasted energy sales as a result of PNM’s successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors. PNM also proposed changes in rate design to better align electric rates with the actual costs to serve customers and encourage continued energy efficiency while proposing a rate mechanism that eliminates the disincentives associated with energy efficiency and load management programs. On May 23, 2017, PNM and several signatories filed a revised comprehensive stipulation, which reduced the non-fuel revenue increase to $62.3 million and provided that PNM would only earn a debt return on its investments in SCR technology at Four Corners. In January 2018, the NMPRC issued an order, which approved many aspects of the revised comprehensive stipulation with several modifications. These modifications include a requirement for PNM to reflect the impacts of recently enacted federal tax reform in rates beginning in 2018, a disallowance of PNM’s ability to collect an equity return on its $90.1 million investment in SCRs at Four Corners and on $58.0 million of projected additional capital improvements at Four Corners, and a requirement that PNM reduce the $62.3 million non-fuel revenue requested increase by $4.4 million. The NMPRC deferred further consideration regarding the prudency of PNM’s continuation of participation in Four Corners to PNM’s next rate case. On February 7, 2018, NEE filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court asking the court to review the NMPRC’s decisions in the NM 2016 Rate Case.

As discussed in Note 17, PNM filed its 2017 IRP on July 3, 2017. Key findings of the 2017 IRP include that retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 after the expiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements would provide long-term cost savings for PNM’s customers and that PNM exiting its ownership interest in Four Corners after its current coal supply agreement expires in 2031 would also provide long-term cost savings for customers. Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS capacity and exiting Four Corners would require NMPRC approval of abandonment filings, which PNM would make at appropriate times in the future. NMPRC approval of new generation resources through CCN filings would also be required. The NMPRC has established a procedural schedule that anticipates a public hearing onissued regulatory orders requiring depreciation (and resultant regulatory recovery) of significant portions of these resources through estimated lives of 2053 for SJGS and 2041 for Four Corners. If the proposed new ratesNMPRC approves the retirement of SJGS in 2022 and exiting Four Corners in 2031, PNM will begin on March 14, 2016. have significant un-recovered investments in those plants. PNM would seek NMPRC approval to recover those investments from ratepayers. At December 31, 2017, the net book values of PNM’s investments in SJGS and Four Corners were $406.7 million and $165.3 million.

An adverse outcome in the currentNM 2015 Rate Case or the NM 2016 Rate Case, including the pending appeals of those orders before the NM Supreme Court, or the decision in PNM’s next rate case on the issue regarding the prudency of PNM’s continued participation in Four Corners could negatively impact PNM’s financial position, results of operation, and cash flows. Likewise, if the NMPRC does not authorize appropriate recovery of any remaining investments in SJGS and Four Corners at the time those resources cease to be used to provide service to New Mexico ratepayers, including required future investments, and does not authorize recovery of the costs of obtaining power to replace those resources, PNM’s financial position, results of operation, and cash flows could be negatively impacted.
 
PNM currently recovers the cost of fuel for its generation facilities through its FPPAC. A new coal supply contract for SJGS, which expires on June 30, 2022, became effective at 11:59 PM on January 31, 2016 and provides for lower coal pricing than under the prior contract. In December 2013, a new fifteen-year coal supply contract for Four Corners beginning in July 2016 was executed. The average coal price per MMBTU under the new contract for Four Corners coal costs are anticipated to increasewas approximately 40%51% higher in the first year oftwelve months ended June 30, 2017 than in the new contract.twelve months ended June 30, 2016. The contracts provide for pricing adjustments over their terms based on economic indices. Although PNM believes substantially all costs under coal supply arrangements would continue to be recovered through the FPPAC, there can be no assurance that full recovery wouldwill be allowed.

PNM’s regulatory approvals from the NMPRC, which are necessary for PNM to comply with the regional haze requirements of the CAA pertaining to SJGS, have been appealed to the NMSC and are subject to a motion for reconsideration before the NMPRC. PNMR has counterparty credit risk in connection with financial support provided to facilitate the new coal supply arrangement for SJGS.NM Supreme Court. Furthermore, the NMPRC approval requires PNM to make a filing in 2018 to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue to serve PNM’s retail customers after June 30, 2022, on which date the SJPPA and the current coal supply agreement will expire. PNMR has counterparty credit risk in connection with financial support provided to facilitate the coal supply arrangement for SJGS. Adverse developments from these factors could have a negative impact on PNM’sthe business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.flows of PNM and PNMR.

SJGS, which currently comprises 31.6%26.7% of PNM’s owned and leased generation capacity and is its largest generation resource, is subject to the CAA. As discussed in Note 16, in December 2015, the NMPRC approved a plan enabling SJGS to comply with the CAA (the “BART Approval”). The plan requires the installation of SNCRs on SJGS Units 1 and 4 combined withrequired the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3.3 by December 31, 2017 and the shutdown was completed by that date. NEE, an intervenor in the NMPRC proceeding regarding the approval of the plan, has appealed the BART Approval to the NMSC.NM Supreme Court. NEE has also filed a motioncomplaint with the NMPRC asking for reconsideration ofagainst PNM regarding the BART Approval order based on developments subsequent to the order related to the loan madefinancing provided by NM Capital, a subsidiary of PNMR, to facilitate the sale of SJCC, which is discussed below and described under Coal Supply in Note 16. NEEThe complaint alleges that PNM failed to comply with its discovery obligation in

A - 15

Table of Contents


the loan is a transaction that requires priorSJGS abandonment case and requests the NMPRC approval.to investigate whether the financing transactions could adversely affect PNM’s ability to provide electric service to its retail customers. The NMPRC has taken no action on this matter. If the NM Supreme Court were to negate the BART Approval, it is negated, PNM may notunclear what the impact would be able to continue to operatesince SJGS without being in violationUnits 2 and 3 have been retired and ownership of the environmental requirements of EPA.SJGS has been restructured.

The BART Approval also requires PNM to make a filing with the NMPRC no later than December 31, 2018, and before entering into an agreement for post-2022 coal supply for SJGS, setting forth its position in a case to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after mid-2022. The existing SJPPA among the SJGS participants, which governs the operations of SJGS, expires on July 1, 2022 and the new SJGS CSA for coal supply at SJGS described in Note 16 both expireexpires on June 30, 2022. PNM has the option to extend the SJGS CSA, subject to negotiation of the term of the extension and compensation to the miner. In order to extend, PNM must give written notice of that intent to the miner by July 1, 2018 and the parties must agree to the terms of the extension by January 1, 2019. Failure to obtain NMPRC approval to continue including SJGS as a resource to serve

As discussed in Note 17, PNM’s retail customers after June 30, 2022 would likely lead to the early retirement2017 IRP indicates that retiring PNM’s share of SJGS at that date, as would failure to extendin 2022 after the SJPPA or to enter into an arrangement forexpiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements and exiting ownership in Four Corners after June 30, 2022.the current coal supply agreement expires in 2031 would provide long-term cost savings for PNM’s customers. The 2017 IRP addresses a 20-year planning period, from 2017 through 2036, and includes an action plan describing PNM’s plan to implement the 2017 IRP in the four-year period following its filing.

AThe restructuring of SJGS ownership and obtaining athe new coal supply for SJGS were integral components of the process to achieve compliance with the CAA at SJGS. The effectiveness of the new SJGS CSA was dependent on the closing of the purchase of the existing coal mine operation by a new mine operator. In support of the closing of the mine purchase, NM Capital provided a loan of $125.0 million to the purchaser, which has been organized to be a bankruptcy-remote entity. In addition, PNMR used $40.0 million of the available capacity under its revolving credit facility to support a bank letter of credithas an arrangement with a suretybank under which the bank has issued $30.3 million of letters of credit in favor of sureties in order for the suretysureties to post reclamation bonds that are required under the mine’s operating permit. PNMR is also obligated to provide the surety with additional collateral in support of the reclamation bonds within 180 days. PNMR is exposed to credit risk in the event the purchaser of the mining operation cannot meet the scheduled repayment obligations under the loanSee Note 6 and to a reduction in its financing capability if the required additional collateral cannot be obtained from other sources. See Note 16.

The inability to operate SJGS or theFour Corners or their early retirement would require approval of SJGSthe NMPRC and would require PNM to obtain power from other sources in order to serve the needs of its customers. There can be no assurance that the NMPRC would approve early retirement or that recovery of any undepreciated investments through rates charged to customers would be authorized. In addition, there can be no assurance that adequate sources of replacement power would be available, that adequate transmission capabilities would be available to bring that power in tointo PNM’s service territory, or whether the cost of obtaining those resources would be reasonable.economic. Any such events would negatively impact PNM’s financial position, results of operation, and cash flows unless the NMPRC authorized the collection from customers of any un-recovered costs related to SJGS and Four Corners, as well as costs of obtaining replacement power.

It is also possible that unsatisfactory outcomes of these matters, the financial impact of climate change regulation or legislation, other environmental regulations, the result of litigation, the adequacy and timeliness of cost recovery mechanisms, and other busine

A- 14

Table of Contents


ssbusiness considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of the plantSJGS and/or Four Corners or the ability of individual participants to continue participation in SJGS.them.

PNMR’s utilities are subject to numerous federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, thatincluding those related to climate change, which may impose significant compliance costs and may significantly limit or affect their operations and financial results.

Environmental policies and regulations remain significant concerns for PNMR. Compliance with federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, including those addressing climate change, air quality, CCBs, discharges of wastewater originating from fly ash and bottom ash handling facilities, cooling water, and other matters, may result in increased capital, operating, and other costs, particularly with regard to enforcement efforts focused on power plant emission obligations. These costs could include remediation, containment, civil liability, and monitoring expenses. The Company cannot predict how theyit would be affected if existing environmental laws and regulations were to be repealed, revised, or reinterpreted, or if new environmental statutes and rules were to be adopted. See Note 16 and the Climate Change Issues subsection of the Other Issues Facing the Company section of MD&A.

Under the Obama Administration, EPA’s Clean Power Plan mandated standards of performance that would limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Individual states would develop and implement plans to ensure compliance with the proposed standards. Currently, the Clean Power Plan is stayed and under review. The Trump Administration has also proposed to repeal the Clean Power Plan and is considering a possible replacement rule. In addition, on June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Therefore, PNMR is dealing with an uncertain regulatory and policy environment. While EPA and other federal andagencies may be seeking to reduce climate change regulations,

A - 16

Table of Contents


some state agencies, environmental advocacy groups, and other organizations arehave been focusing considerable attention on GHG from power generation facilities, including the role of those facilities in climate change.facilities. PNM currently depends on fossil-fueled generation for a significant shareportion of its electricity. As discussed in theunder Climate Change Issues, subsectionthis type of Other Issues Facing the Company section of MD&A, this generation iscould be subject to EPA’sfuture EPA or state regulations requiring GHG reductions. This includes new, existing, and modified or reconstructed EGUs. TheseThe uncertainty regarding climate change regulation presents challenges and represents a possible shift of greater authority to the states to make decisions and issue and enforce regulations. Federal and/or state regulations could result in additional operating restrictions on facilities and increased generation and compliance costs.

CCBs from the operation of SJGS are currently being used in the reclamation of a surface coal mine. These CCBs consist of fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum. Any new regulation that would affect the reclamation process, including mine use of CCBs being classified as hazardous waste, could significantly increase the costs of the disposal of CCBs and the costs of mine reclamation. See Note 16.

A regulatory body may identify a site requiring environmental cleanup and designate PNM or TNMP as a responsible party. There is also uncertainty in quantifying exposure under environmental laws that impose joint and several liability on all potentially responsible parties. Failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations, even if such non-compliance is caused by factors beyond PNM’s or TNMP’s control, may result in the assessment of civil or criminal penalties and fines.

BART determinations have been made for both SJGS and Four Corners under the program to address regional haze in the “four corners” area, which would reduce the levels of NOx emitted at both plants. Significant capital expenditures have been made or will be requiredat SJGS and are continuing at Four Corners for the installation of control technology at both generating stations andresulting in operating costs will increase.increases. PNMR and its operating subsidiaries may underestimate the costs of environmental compliance, liabilities, and litigation due to the uncertainty inherent in these matters. Although there is uncertainty about the timing and form of the implementation of EPA’s regulations regarding climate change, including the Clean Power Plan, how CCBs used for mine reclamation will be regulated, and regulation of other power plant emissions, including changes to the ambient air quality standards, such regulations could have a material impact on operations. The Company is unable to estimate these costs due to the many uncertainties associated with, among other things, the nature and extent of future regulations and changes in existing regulations, including the changes in regulatory policy under the Trump Administration. Timely regulatory recovery of costs associated with any environmental-related regulations would be needed to maintain a strong financial and operational profile. The above factors could adversely affect the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.

PNMR, PNM, and TNMP are subject to complex government regulation unrelated to the environment, which may have a negative impact on their businesses, financial position and results of operations.
 
To operate their businesses, PNMR, PNM, and TNMP are required to have numerous permits and approvals from a variety of regulatory agencies. Regulatory bodies with jurisdiction over the utilities include the NMPRC, NMED, PUCT, TCEQ, ERCOT, FERC, NRC, EPA, and NERC. Oversight by these agencies covers many aspects of the Company’s utility operations including:including, but not limited to: location, construction, and operation of facilities; the purchase of power under long-term contracts; conditions of service; the issuance of securities; and rates charged to customers. FERC has issued a number of rules pertaining to preventing undue discrimination in transmission services and electric reliability standards.
The significant level of regulation imposes restrictions on the operations of the Company and causes the incurrence of substantial compliance costs. PNMR and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the impact on their business and operating results from future actions of any agency regulating the Company. Changes in existing regulations or the adoption of new ones could result in additional expenses and/or changes in business operations. In turn, operatingFailure to comply with any applicable rules, regulations or decisions may lead to customer refunds, fines, penalties, and other payments, which could materially and adversely affect the results could be adversely impacted.of operations and financial condition of PNMR and its subsidiaries. 
 
Operational Factors
 

A- 15

Table of Contents


Customer electricity usage could be reduced by increases in prices charged and other factors.  This could result in underutilization of PNM’s generating capacity, as well as underutilization of the capacities of PNM’s and TNMP’s transmission and distribution systems.  Should this occur, operating and capital costs might not be fully recovered, and financial performance could be negatively impacted.

A number of factors influence customers’ electricity purchases.usage.  These factors include, but are not limited to:

Rates charged by PNM and TNMP
Rates charged by REPs utilizing TNMP’s facilities to deliver power
Energy efficiency initiatives

A - 17

Table of Contents


Availability and cost of alternative sources of power
National, regional, or local economic conditions

These factors and others may prompt customers to institute additional energy efficiency measures or take other actions that would result in lower power consumption. If customers bypass or underutilize PNM’s and TNMP’s facilities through self-generation, renewable, or other energy resources, technological change, or other measures, revenues would be negatively impacted.

PNM’s and TNMP’s service territories include several military bases and federally funded national laboratories, as well as large industrial customers that have significant direct and indirect impacts on the local economies where they operate.  The Company does not directly provide service to any of the military bases or national laboratories, but does provide service to large industrial customers. The Company’s business could be hurt from the impacts on the local economies associated with these customer groups, as well as directly from the large industrial customers, for a number of reasons, including:

Federally-mandated base closures or significant curtailment of the activities at the bases or national laboratories
Closure of industrial facilities or significant curtailment of their activities
 
Another factor that could negatively impact the Company is that proposals are periodically advanced in various localities to municipalize, or otherwise take over PNM’s facilities, which PNM believes would require state legislative action to implement, or to establish new municipal utilities in areas currently served by PNM.  For example, officials in the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico have indicated a desire to reduce the carbon footprint of the city, which could include exploring renewable resources dedicated to serve the city, a partnership with existing utilities, or the feasibility of a city-owned municipal electric utility. PNM is monitoring that situation. If any such initiative is successful, the result could be a material reduction in the usage of the facilities, a reduction in rate base, and reduced earnings.

Should any of the above factors result in facilities being underutilized, the Company’s financial position, operational results, and cash flows could be significantly impacted.

Advances in technology could make electric generating facilities less competitive.

Research and development activities are ongoing for new technologies that produce power or reduce power consumption. These technologies include renewable energy, customer-oriented generation, energy storage, and energy efficiency. PNM generates power at central station power plants to achieve economies of scale and produce power at a cost that is competitive with rates established through the regulatory process. There are distributed generation technologies that produce power, including fuel cells, microturbines, wind turbines, and solar cells, which have become increasingly cost competitive. It is possible that advances in technology will continue to reduce the costs of these alternative methods of producing power to a level that is competitive with that of central station power production. Advances in the capabilities for energy storage could also have impacts on power production by PNM as it would be increasingly simple to reduce peak usage by dispatching battery systems. This could result in demand reduction that could negatively impact revenue and/or result in underutilized assets that had been built to serve peak usage. If these technologies become cost competitive and achieve economies of scale, PNM’s energy sales could be eroded, and the value of its generating facilities could be reduced. Advances in technology could also change the channels through which electric customers purchase or use power, which could reduce the Company’s sales and revenues or increase expenses. These advances can also create more uncertainty in load shapes and forecasts, which could have implications for generation and system planning.

Costs of decommissioning, remediation, and restoration of nuclear and fossil-fueled power plants, as well as reclamation of related coal mines, could exceed the estimates of PNMR and PNM as well as the amounts PNM recovers from its ratepayers, which could negatively impact results of operations and liquidity.

PNM has interests in a nuclear power plant, two coal-fired power plants, and several natural gas-fired power plants. PNM is obligated to pay for the costs of decommissioning its share of the power plants. PNM is also obligated to pay for its share of the costs of decommissioningreclamation of the mines that supply coal to the coal-fired power plants. Likewise, other owners or participants are responsible for their shares of the decommissioning and reclamation obligations and it is important to PNM that those parties fulfill their obligations. Rates charged by PNM to its customers, as approved by the NMPRC, include a provision for recovery of certain costs of decommissioning, remediation, reclamation, and restoration. The NMPRC has established a cap on the amount of decommissioning costs for the final reclamation of the surface coal mines that may be recovered from customers. PNM records estimated liabilities for its share of the legal obligations for decommissioning and reclamation.reclamation in accordance with GAAP. These estimates include many assumptions about future events and are inherently imprecise. As discussed in Note 17, PNM’s 2017 IRP indicates that retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 and exiting PNM’s ownership interest in Four Corners in 2031 would provide long-term cost savings for customers. Should those events occur, the costs of reclamation for the coal mines serving those plants would increase and the increases could be significant. In the event any of these costs exceed current estimates, results of operations could be negatively impacted.impacted unless the NMPRC authorizes recovery of the additional costs from ratepayers. In addition, the NMPRC’s order in the NM 2015 Rate Case (Note 17) disallows recovery of future contributions for the decommissioning of certain portions of PVNGS. PNM has appealed the NMPRC decision in the NM 2015 Rate Case, oral argument has been held, and the appeal is

A - 18

Table of Contents


pending before the NM Supreme Court. An adverse outcome of the appeal could negatively impact PNM’s future results of operations, cash flows, and liquidity.

The costs of decommissioning any nuclear power plant are substantial. PNM is responsible for all decommissioning obligations related to its entire interest in PVNGS, including portions under lease both during and after termination of the leases. PNM maintains trust funds designed to provide adequate financial resources for decommissioning PVNGS and for reclamation of the coal mines serving SJGS and Four Corners at the end of their expected lives. However, if the PVNGS units are decommissioned before their planned date or the coal mines are shut down sooner than expected, these funds may prove to be insufficient.

The financial performance of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP may be adversely affected if power plants and transmission and distribution systems do not operate reliably and efficiently.
 
The Company’s financial performance depends on the successful operation of PNM’s generation assets, as well as the transmission and distribution systems of PNM and TNMP. As indicated above, SJGS Units 2 and 3 were shut down in December 2017. Also, PNM’s 2017 IRP indicates that retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 and that PNM exiting its ownership interest in Four Corners in 2031 would also provide long-term cost savings for customers. These actions will increase PNM’s dependency on other generation resources, particularly PVNGS, and will reduce PNM’s flexibility in managing those resources. Unscheduled or longer than expected maintenance outages, breakdown or failure of equipment or processes due to aging infrastructure, temporary or permanent shutdowns to achieve environmental compliance, other performance problems with the electric generation assets, severe weather conditions, accidents and other catastrophic events, acts of war or terrorism, cybersecurity attacks, disruptions in the supply, quality, and delivery of fuel and water supplies, and other

A- 16

Table of Contents


factors could result in PNM’s load requirements being larger than available system generation capacity. Assured supplies of water are important for PNM’s generating plants. Water in the southwestern United States is limited and there are conflicting claims regarding water rights. In addition, the “four corners” region where two of PNM’s power plantsSJGS and Four Corners are located is prone to drought conditions, which could potentially affect the plants’ water supplies. Unplanned outages of generating units and extensions of scheduled outages occur from time to time and are an inherent risk of the Company’s business. If these were to occur, PNM would be required to purchase electricity in either the wholesale market or spot market at the then-current market price. There can be no assurance that sufficient electricity would be available at reasonable prices, or available at all. The failure of transmission or distribution facilities may also affect PNM’s and TNMP’s ability to deliver power. These potential generation, distribution, and transmission problems, and any service interruptions related to them, could result in lost revenues and additional costs.

PNMR, PNM, and TNMP are subject to information security breaches and risks of unauthorized access to their information and operational technology systems as well as physical threats to assets.
 
The Company faces the risk of physical and cybercybersecurity attacks, both threatened and actual, against generation facilities, transmission and distribution infrastructure used to transport power, and information technology systems, and network infrastructure, which could negatively impact the ability of the Company to generate, transport, and deliver power, or otherwise operate facilities in the most efficient manner or at all.

The utility industry in which the Company functions inoperates is a highly regulated industry that requires the continued operation of sophisticated information technology systems and network infrastructure, some of which are deemed to be critical infrastructure under NERC guidelines. Certain of the Company’s systems are interconnected with external networks. In the regular course of business, the utilities handle a range of sensitive security and customer information. PNM and TNMP are subject to the rules of various agencies concerning safeguarding and maintaining the confidentiality of this information. Despite steps the Company may take to detect, mitigate and/or eliminate cybersecurity threats and respond to data security incidents, the techniques used by those who wish to obtain unauthorized access, and possibly disable or sabotage systems and/or abscond with confidential information and data, change frequently and the Company may not be able to protect against such actions.

In the event a party desires to disrupt the bulk power or transmission systems in the United States, the Company’s computer and operating systems could be subject to physical or cybercybersecurity attack.  Although the Company has implemented security measures, critical infrastructure, including information and operational technology systems, are vulnerable to disability, failures, or unauthorized access.access, which could occur as a result of malicious compromise, employee error, and/or employee misconduct.  A successful physical or cybercybersecurity attack or other similar failure of the systems could impact the reliability of PNM’s generation and PNM’s and TNMP’s transmission and distribution systems, including the possible unauthorized shutdown of facilities. Such an event could lead to significant disruptions of business operations, including the Company’s ability to generate, transport, and deliver power to serve customers, to bill customers, and to process other financial information. A major physical or cyber incidentMoreover, a breach of the Company’s information technology systems could also lead to the loss and destruction of confidential and proprietary data, customer and employee data (which may include personally identifiable information such as names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses

A - 19

Table of Contents


and payment account information), trade secrets, intellectual property and supplier data, and could disrupt business operations which could harm the Company’s reputation and financial results, as well as potential increased regulatory oversight, litigation, fines, and other remedial action, and reputational damage.action. The costs incurred to investigate and remediate a physical or cyber securitycybersecurity attack could be significant. If the Company’s systems were to fail or be breached and not recovered in a timely way, critical business functions could be impaired and sensitive or confidential data could be compromised. A physical or cybercybersecurity attack on the Company’s critical infrastructure could have a material adverse impact on the operations and financial condition of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP.
 
There are inherent risks in the ownership and operation of nuclear facilities.
 
PNM has a 10.2% undivided interest in PVNGS, including interests in Units 1 and 2 held under leases. PVNGS represents 16.2%19.1% of PNM’s total owned and leased generating capacity. PVNGS is subject to environmental, health, and financial risks, including, but not limited to:
 
The ability to obtain adequate supplies of nuclear fuel and water
The ability to dispose of spent nuclear fuel
Decommissioning of the plant (see above)
Securing the facilities against possible terrorist attacks
Unscheduled outages due to equipment failures
PNM maintains trust funds designed to provide adequate financial resources for decommissioning at the end of the expected life of the PVNGS units. However, if the units are decommissioned before their planned date, these funds may prove to be insufficient. PNM also has external insurance coverage to minimize its financial exposure to some risks. However, it is possible that liabilities associated with nuclear operations could exceed the amount of insurance coverage. See Note 16.
 
The NRC has broad authority under federal law to impose licensing and safety-related requirements for the operation of nuclear generation facilities. Events at nuclear facilities of other operators or which impact the industry generally may lead the NRC to impose additional requirements and regulations on all nuclear generation facilities, including PVNGS. AsA major incident at a result of the March 2011 earthquake and tsunamis that caused significant damage to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, various industry organizations are working to analyze information from the Japan incident and develop action plans for nuclear powe

A- 17

Table of Contents


r plantsfacility anywhere in the United States. Additionally,world could cause the NRC has been performing its own independent reviewto limit or prohibit the operation or licensing of the events at Fukushima Daiichi, including a review of the agency’s processesany domestic nuclear unit and to promulgate new regulations in order to determine whether the agency should promulgate additional regulations and possibly make more fundamental changes to the NRC’s system of regulation. As a result of the Fukushima Daiichi event, the NRC has directed nuclear power plants to implement the first tier recommendations of the NRC’s near term task force.  In response to these recommendations, PVNGS expects to spend approximately $0.5 million forthat could require significant capital enhancements to the plant over the next year in addition to the approximate $125 million that has already been spent on capital enhancements as of December 31, 2015 (PNM’s share is 10.2%). PNM cannot predict whether these amounts will increase or whether additional financialexpenditures and/or operational requirements on PVNGS and APS may be imposed.increase operating costs.
In the event of noncompliance with its requirements, the NRC has the authority to impose a progressively increasedincreasing inspection regime that could ultimately result in the shutdown of a unit, or civil penalties, or both, depending upon the NRC’s assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. Increased costs resulting from penalties, a heightened level of scrutiny, and/or implementation of plans to achieve compliance with NRC requirements could adversely affect the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of PNMR and PNM. Although PNM has no reason to anticipate a serious nuclear incident at PVNGS, if an incident did occur, it could materially and adversely affect PNM’s results of operations and financial condition. A major incident at a
PNM has external insurance coverage to minimize its financial exposure to some risks. However, it is possible that liabilities associated with nuclear facility anywhere inoperations could exceed the world could cause the NRC to limit or prohibit the operation or licensingamount of any domestic nuclear unit and to promulgate new regulations that could require significant capital expenditures and/or increase operating costs.insurance coverage. See Note 16.
 
Demand for power could exceed supply capacity, resulting in increased costs for purchasing capacity in the open market or building additional generation facilities.

PNM is obligated to supply power to retail customers and certain wholesale customers. At peak times, power demand could exceed PNM’s available generation capacity.capacity, particularly if PNM’s power plants are not performing as anticipated. In addition, SJGS units 2 and 3 were shut down in December 2017 and PNM’s 2017 IRP indicates that it would save customers money for PNM to shut down the remaining two units of SJGS in 2022 and to exit ownership in Four Corners in 2031. SJGS and Four Corners comprise a significant portion of PNM’s base load generation capacity and their retirement would increase reliance on other existing or new generating resources. Market forces, competitive forces, or adverse regulatory actions may require PNM to purchase capacity on the open market or build additional generation capabilities. Regulators or market conditions may not permit PNM to pass all of these purchases or construction costs on to customers. If that occurs, PNM may not be able to fully recover these costs. Or,costs or there may be a lag between when costs are incurred and when regulators permit recovery in customers’ rates. These situations could have negative impacts on results of operations and cash flows.


A- 18

Table of Contents


General Economic and Weather Factors
General economic conditions of the nation and/or specific areas can affect the Company’s customers and suppliers. Economic recession or downturn may result in decreased consumption by customers and increased bad debt expense, and could also negatively impact suppliers, all of which could negatively impact the Company.
Economic activity in the service territories of PNMR subsidiaries is a key factor in their performance. Decreased economic activity can lead to declines in energy consumption, which could adversely affect future revenues, earnings, and growth.  Higher unemployment rates, both in the Company’s service territories and nationwide, could result in commercial customers ceasing operations and lower levels of income for residential customers. These customers might then be unable to pay their bills on time,

A - 20

Table of Contents


which could increase bad debt expense and negatively impact results of operations and cash flows. Economic conditions also impact the supply and/or cost of commodities and materials needed to construct or acquire utility assets or make necessary repairs.
 
Uncertainties regarding the impacts and implementation of recent United States tax reform legislation may negatively impact PNMR’s, PNM’s, and TNMP’s businesses, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

On December 22, 2017, comprehensive changes in United States federal income taxes were enacted through legislation commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”). Among other things, the Tax Act reduces the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% effective January 1, 2018, eliminates federal bonus depreciation for utilities effective September 28, 2017, and, effective January 1, 2018, limits interest deductibility for non-utility businesses and limits the deductibility of certain officer compensation. In December 2017, the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118, which provides guidance to address the application of GAAP to reflect the Tax Act in circumstances where all information and analysis of the Tax Act is not yet available or complete. This bulletin provides for up to a one-year period in which to complete the required analyses and accounting for the impacts of the Tax Act.

In accordance with GAAP, the Company adjusted its deferred tax assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2017 resulting in increases in regulatory liabilities related to adjustments of net deferred tax liabilities associated with regulated activities, which will be returned to PNM’s and TNMP’s ratepayers over time, and increases in income tax expense related to adjustments of net deferred tax assets related to items excluded from regulated activities. The Company believes it has made reasonable estimates of the effects of the Tax Act as of December 31, 2017 and reflected the impacts in the Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company currently believes that the impacts of the Tax Act will not significantly impact the future earnings of regulated activities due to the ratemaking process. However, cash flows will be reduced in the near term due to less cash being received from customer billings as the benefits of the reduced corporate income tax are passed on to ratepayers, but without a corresponding reduction in income taxes paid due to the Company having a net operating loss carryforward for income taxes purposes. In addition, the income tax benefit of net losses for the unregulated activities of PNMR, primarily interest expense on holding company debt, will be negatively impacted by the reduced rate. Furthermore, there is uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the provision of the Tax Act that limits the deductibility of interest for non-utility businesses under the interest expense allocation methodology that is generally used by the utility industry.

It is possible that changes to U.S. Treasury regulations, IRS interpretations of the provisions of the Tax Act, actions by the NMPRC, PUCT, and FERC, or the Company’s further analysis of historical records could cause the estimates of the impacts recorded as of December 31, 2017 to change or cause the Company’s current assessment of future impacts to change. Any such change could adversely affect the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

The operating results of PNMR and its operating subsidiaries fluctuate on a seasonal and quarterly basis, as well as being affected by weather conditions, including regional drought.
Electric generation, transmission, and distribution are generally seasonal businesses that vary with the demand for power. With power consumption typically peaking during the hot summer months, revenues traditionally peak during that period. As a result, quarterly operating results of PNMR and its operating subsidiaries vary throughout the year. In addition, PNMR and its operating subsidiaries have historically had lower revenues resulting in lower earnings when weather conditions are milder. Unusually mild weather in the future could reduce the revenues, net earnings, and cash flows of the Company.
Drought conditions in New Mexico, especially in the “four corners” region, where SJGS and Four Corners are located, may affect the water supply for PNM’s generating plants.  If inadequate precipitation occurs in the watershed that supplies that region, PNM may have to decrease generation at these plants. This would require PNM to purchase power to serve customers and/or reduce the ability to sell excess power on the wholesale market and reduce revenues. Drought conditions or actions taken by the court system, regulators, or legislators could limit PNM’s supply of water, which would adversely impact PNM’s business. Although PNM hasSJGS and Four Corners participate in place supplemental contracts and voluntary shortage sharing agreements with tribes and other water users in the “four corners” region, PNM cannot be certain these contracts will be enforceable in the event of a major drought or that it will be able to renew these contracts in the future.
TNMP’s service areas are exposed to extreme weather, including high winds, drought, flooding, ice storms, and periodic hurricanes. Extreme weather conditions, particularly high winds and severe thunderstorms, also occur periodically in PNM’s service areas. These severe weather events can physically damage facilities owned by TNMP and PNM. Any such occurrence both disrupts the ability to deliver energy and increases costs. Extreme weather can also reduce customers’ usage and demand for energy. These factors could negatively impact results of operations and cash flows.

A - 21

Table of Contents


Financial Factors
PNMR may be unable to meet its ongoing and future financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock if its subsidiaries are unable to pay dividends or distributions to PNMR.
PNMR is a holding company and has no operations of its own. PNMR’s ability to meet its financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock primarily depends on the net income and cash flows of PNM and TNMP and their capacity to pay upstream dividends or distributions. Prior to providing funds to PNMR, PNM and TNMP have financial and regulatory obligations that must be satisfied, including among others, debt service and, in the case of PNM, preferred stock dividends.
The NMPRC has placed certain restrictions on the ability of PNM to pay dividends to PNMR, including that PNM cannot pay dividends that cause its debt rating to fall below investment grade. The NMPRC has also restricted PNM from paying dividends in any year, as determined on a rolling four-quarter basis, in excess of net earnings without prior NMPRC approval. PNM is permitted to pay dividends to PNMR from prior equity contributions made by PNMR. Additionally, the Company’s financing agreements generally include a covenant to maintain a debt-to-capital ratio that does not exceed 65%, PNM has various financial covenants that limit the transfer of assets, through dividends or other means.means and the Federal Power Act imposes certain restrictions on dividends paid by public utilities, including that dividends cannot be paid from paid-in capital.
Further, the ability of PNMR to declare dividends depends upon:

The extent to which cash flows will support dividends
The Company’s financial circumstances and performance
NMPRC’sDecisions of the NMPRC and PUCT’s decisionsPUCT in various regulatory cases currently pending and whichor that may be docketed in the future, including the outcome of appeals of those decisions
Conditions imposed by the NMPRC, PUCT, or PUCTFederal Power Act
The effect of federal regulatory decisions and legislative acts

A- 19

Table of Contents


Economic conditions in the United States and in the Company’s service areas
Future growth plans and the related capital requirements
Other business considerations

Disruption in the credit and capital markets may impact the Company’s strategy and ability to raise capital.
As discussed in MD&A – Liquidity and Capital Resources, PNMR and its subsidiaries rely on access to both short-term and longer-term capital markets as sources of liquidity for any capital requirements as discussed in MD&A – Liquidity and Capital Resources, not satisfied by cash flow from operations. In general, the Company relies on its short-term credit facilities as the initial source to finance construction expenditures. This results in increased borrowings under the facilities over time. The Company is currently projecting total construction expenditures for the years 2016-20202018-2022 to be $2,037.0$2,712.1 million. If PNMR or its operating subsidiaries are not able to access capital at competitive rates, or at all, PNMR’s ability to finance capital requirements and implement its strategy will be limited. Disruptions in the credit markets, which could negatively impact the Company’s access to capital, could be caused by:
 
An economic recession
Declines in the health of the banking sector generally, or the failure of specific banks who are parties to the Company’s credit facilities
Deterioration in the overall health of the utility industry
The bankruptcy of an unrelated energy company
War, terrorist attacks, or cybersecurity attacks, or threatened attacks
 
If the Company’s cash flow and credit and capital resources are insufficient to fund capital expenditure plans, the Company may be forced to delay important capital investments, sell assets, seek additional equity or debt capital, or restructure debt. In addition, insufficient cash flows and capital resources may result in reductions of credit ratings. This could negatively impact the Company’s ability to incur additional indebtedness on acceptable terms and would result in an increase in the interest rates applicable under the Company’s credit facilities. The Company’s cash flow and capital resources may be insufficient to pay interest and principal on debt in the future. If that should occur, the Company’s capital raising or debt restructuring measures may be unsuccessful or inadequate to meet scheduled debt service obligations. This could cause the Company to default on its obligations and further impair liquidity.
Reduction in credit ratings or changing rating agency requirements could materially and adversely affect the Company’s growth, strategy, business, financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.
 

A - 22

Table of Contents


PNMR, PNM, and TNMP cannot be sure that any of their current credit ratings will remain in effect for any given period of time or that a rating will not be put under review for a downgrade, lowered, or withdrawn entirely by a rating agency. On January 16, 2018, S&P changed the outlook for PNMR, PNM and TNMP from stable to negative while affirming the investment grade ratings of each entity. Downgrades or changing requirements could result in increased borrowing costs due to higher interest rates inon current borrowings or future financings, a smaller potential pool of investors, and decreased funding sources. Such conditions also could require the provision of additional support in the form of letters of credit and cash or other collateral to various counterparties.

Declines in values of marketable securities held in trust funds for pension and other postretirement benefits and in the NDT and mine reclamation trusts could result in sustained increases in costs and funding requirements for those obligations, which may affect operational results.

TheThrough 2017, the Company targetstargeted 21% of its pension trust funds and 70% of its trust funds for other postretirement benefits to be invested in marketable equity securities. OverHistorically, over one-half of funds held in the NDT are typicallyand mine reclamation trusts have been invested in marketable equity securities. Due to the current funded status of the NDT and recent overall market performance, PNM began re-balancing the NDT investment portfolio with a target of 85% fixed income (debt) securities. The re-balancing was completed in January 2018 and increases the exposure of the NDT investment portfolio to interest rate risk. The Company is also contemplating decreasing its allocation target beginning in 2018 for liability matching fixed-income securities in the pension trusts from 65% to 50%. Declines in market values could result in increased funding of the trusts, as well as the recognition of losses as impairments for the NDT and mine reclamation trusts, and additional expense for the benefit plans. In addition, a change in GAAP requires that all changes in the fair value of equity securities recorded on the Company’s balance sheet be reflected in earnings beginning in 2018, which could result in increased volatility in earnings.

Impairments of goodwill and long-lived assets of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP could adversely affect the Company’s business, financial position, liquidity, and results of operations.
 
PNMR, PNM, and TNMPThe Company annually evaluate theirevaluates recorded goodwill for impairment. TheySee Note 18 and the Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates section of MD&A. Long-lived assets are also assess long-lived assetsassessed whenever indicators of impairment exist. Factors that affect the long-term value of these assets, including treatment by regulators in ratemaking proceedings, as well as other economic and market conditions, could result in impairments. Significant impairments could adversely affect the Company’s business, financial position, liquidity, and results of operations.

PNM’s PVNGS leases describe certain events, including “Events of Loss” and “Deemed Loss Events”, the occurrence of which could require PNM to take ownership of the underlying assets and pay the lessors for the assets.
 

A- 20

Table of Contents


The “Events of Loss” generally relate to casualties, accidents, and other events at PVNGS, including the occurrence of specified nuclear events, which would severely adversely affect the ability of the operating agent, APS, to operate, and the ability of PNM to earn a return on its interests in PVNGS.  The “Deemed Loss Events” consist primarily of legal and regulatory changes (such as issuance by the NRC of specified violation orders, changes in law making the sale and leaseback transactions illegal, or changes in law making the lessors liable for nuclear decommissioning obligations). PNM believes that the probability of such “Events of Loss” or “Deemed Loss Events” occurring is remote for the following reasons: (1) to a large extent, prevention of “Events of Loss” and some “Deemed Loss Events” is within the control of the PVNGS participants through the general PVNGS operational and safety oversight process; and (2) other “Deemed Loss Events” would involve a significant change in current law and policy. PNM is unaware of any proposals pending or being considered for introduction in Congress, or in any state legislative or regulatory body that, if adopted, would cause any of those events. See Note 7.
 
Governance Factors
 
Provisions of PNMR’s organizational documents, as well as several other statutory and regulatory factors, will limit another party’s ability to acquire PNMR and could deprive PNMR’s shareholders of the opportunity to receive a takeover premium for shares of PNMR’s common stock.
 
PNMR’s restated articles of incorporation and by-laws include a number of provisions that may have the effect of discouraging persons from acquiring large blocks of PNMR’s common stock, or delaying or preventing a change in control of PNMR. The material provisions that may have such an effect include:
 
Authorization for the Board to issue PNMR’s preferred stock in series and to fix rights and preferences of the series (including, among other things, voting rights and preferences with respect to dividends and other matters)
Advance notice procedures with respect to any proposal other than those adopted or recommended by the Board

A - 23

Table of Contents


Provisions specifying that only a majority of the Board, the chairman of the Board, the chief executive officer, or holders of at least one-tenth of all of PNMR’s shares entitled to vote may call a special meeting of stockholders
 
Under the New Mexico Public Utility Act, NMPRC approval is required for certain transactions that may result in PNMR’s change in control or exercise of control, including ownership of 10% or more of PNMR’s voting stock. PUCT approval is required for changes to the ownership of TNMP or its parent and certain other transactions relating to TNMP. Certain acquisitions of PNMR’s outstanding voting securities also require FERC approval.

ITEM 1B.UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.

ITEM 2.PROPERTIES
PNMR
The significant properties owned by PNMR include those owned by PNM and TNMP and are disclosed below.
PNM

A- 21

Table of Contents


See Sources of Power in Part I, Item. 1 Business above for information on PNM’s owned and leased capacity in electric generating stations. As of December 31, 20152017, PNM owned, or jointly owned, or leased, 3,199 circuit3,200 miles of electric transmission lines, (including the EIP), 6,0676,063 miles of distribution overhead lines, 5,759 cable5,828 miles of underground distribution lines (excluding street lighting), and 274254 substations. PNM’s electric transmission and distribution lines are generally located within easements and rights-of-way on public, private, and Native American lands. PNM owns and leases interests in PVNGS Units 1 and 2 and related property, data processing, communication, office and other equipment, office space, vehicles, and real estate. PNM also owns and leases service and office facilities in Albuquerque and in other areas throughout its service territory. See Note 7 for additional information concerning leases, including PNM’s renewal of certain of the PVNGS leases and exercise of its option to purchase the assets underlying certain other leases at the expiration of the original lease terms. As discussed in Note 7, PNM exercised its option to purchase the leased portion of the EIP at expiration of the lease at fair market value. See Note 9 for additional information about Valencia, including the potential purchase of 50% of Valencia.
TNMP
TNMP’s facilities consist primarily of transmission and distribution facilities located in its service areas. TNMP also owns and leases vehicles, service facilities, and office facilities in other areaslocations throughout its service territory. As of December 31, 20152017, TNMP owned 966 circuit978 miles of overhead electric transmission lines, 7,087 pole7,119 miles of overhead distribution lines, 1,167 circuit1,241 miles of underground distribution lines, and 110116 substations. Substantially all of TNMP’s property is pledged to secure its first mortgage bonds. See Note 6.


A - 24

Table of Contents


ITEM 3.LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

See Note 16 and Note 17 for information related to the following matters for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP, incorporated in this item by reference.

Note 16

The Clean Air Act – Regional Haze – SJGS
The Clean Air Act – Regional Haze – Four Corners
The Clean Air Act – Citizen Suit Under the Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act – Four Corners Clean Air ActFederal Agency Lawsuit
Four Corners Coal Mine    
WEG v. OSM NEPA Lawsuit
Navajo Nation Environmental Issues
Santa Fe Generating Station
Coal Supply – Four Corners – Four Corners Coal Supply Arbitration
Continuous Highwall Mining Royalty Rate
Four Corners Severance Tax Assessment
PVNGS Water Supply Litigation
San Juan River Adjudication
Rights-of-Way Matter
Complaint Against Southwestern Public Service Company
Navajo NationsNation Allottee Matters
Sales Tax Audits

Note 17

PNM – New Mexico General Rate Case
PNM – Proceeding Regarding Definition of Future Test YearCases
PNM – Renewable Portfolio Standard
PNM – Renewable Energy Rider
PNM – Energy Efficiency and Load Management
PNM – FPPAC Continuation Application
PNM – Integrated Resource PlanPlans
PNM – San Juan Generating Station Units 2 and 3 Retirement
PNM – Application for Certificate of Convenience and Necessity
PNM – Transmission Rate Case
PNM – Formula Transmission Rate Case
PNM – Firm-Requirements Wholesale Customers – Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc.
TNMP – Advanced Meter System Deployment
TNMP – Energy EfficiencyMetering Infrastructure Application
TNMP – Transmission Cost of Service Rates

A- 22

Table of ContentsTNMP – Order Related to Changes in Federal Income Tax Rates



ITEM 4.MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not Applicable.


A- 23

Table of Contents


SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM – EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
All officers are elected annually by the Board of PNMR. Executive officers, their ages as of February 19, 201623, 2018 and offices held with PNMR for the past five years or other companies if less than five years with PNMR, are as follows:
Name Age Office Initial Effective Date
P. K. Collawn 5759 Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer January 2012
President and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 2010
C. N. Eldred 6264 Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer July 2007
P. V. Apodaca 6466 Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary January 2010
R. E. Talbot55Senior Vice President and Chief Operating OfficerJanuary 2012
Chief Operating Officer, Power Supply and Power Delivery – Indianapolis Power and Light CompanyJune 2011
Senior Vice President, Power Supply – Indianapolis Power and Light CompanyFebruary 2007
R. N. Darnell 5860 Senior Vice President, Public Policy January 2012
J. D. Tarry 47 Vice President, Regulatory AffairsFinance and Controller April 2008February 2017
   
J.D. Tarry (1)
45 Vice President, Corporate Controller, and Chief Information Officer April 2015
    Vice President, Customer Service and Chief Information Officer May 2012
C. M. Olson60Senior Vice President, Utility OperationsFebruary 2018
    Executive Director, Financial Planning and Business AnalysisVice President, Utility Operations January 2010December 2016
Vice President, Generation – PNMNovember 2012
(1) On December 9, 2014, T. G. Sategna notified the Company that he intended to retire as the Company’s principal accounting officer effective as of March 31, 2015. On December 11, 2014, the Company appointed J. D. Tarry as its Vice President and Controller, effective as of April 1, 2015. His appointment was approved by the Board on February 26, 2015.


A- 24A - 25

Table of Contents


PART II
 
ITEM 5.MARKET FOR PNMR’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS, AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

PNMR’s common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (Symbol: PNM). Ranges of sales prices of PNMR’s common stock, reported as composite transactions, and dividends declared on the common stock for 20152017 and 20142016, by quarters,quarter, are as follows:
Quarter Ended
Range of
Sales Prices
 Dividends Declared Per Share
Range of
Sales Prices
 Dividends Declared Per Share
High Low High Low 
2015     
2017     
March 31$31.18
 $27.06
 $0.200
$37.60
 $33.45
 $0.2425
June 3029.78
 24.49
 0.200
40.00
 36.30
 0.2425
September 3028.17
 24.42
 0.200
42.95
 37.35
 0.2425
December 3131.23
 26.56
 0.220
45.50
 40.20
 0.2650
Fiscal Year31.23
 24.42
 0.820
45.50
 33.45
 0.9925
2014     
2016     
March 31$27.15
 $23.53
 $0.185
$34.07
 $29.22
 $0.2200
June 3029.33
 26.28
 0.185
35.46
 30.62
 0.2200
September 3029.80
 24.27
 0.185
36.15
 31.20
 0.2200
December 3131.39
 25.18
 0.200
34.53
 30.95
 0.2425
Fiscal Year31.39
 23.53
 0.755
36.15
 29.22
 0.9025

Dividends on PNMR’s common stock are declared by its Board. The timing of the declaration of dividends is dependent on the timing of meetings and other actions of the Board. This has historically resulted in dividends considered to be attributable to the second quarter of each year being declared through actions of the Board during the third quarter of the year. The Board declared dividends on common stock considered to be for the second quarter of $0.185$0.22 per share in July 20142016 and $0.200$0.2425 per share in July 20152017, which are reflected as being in the second quarter above. The Board declared dividends on common stock considered to be for the third quarter of $0.185$0.22 per share in September 20142016 and $0.200$0.2425 per share in September 20152017, which are reflected as being in the third quarter above. On February 25, 2016,23, 2018, the Board declared a quarterly dividend of $0.22$0.2650 per share. PNMR targets a long-term dividend payout ratio of 50% to 60% of consolidated earnings. Duringongoing earnings, which is a non-GAAP financial measure that excludes from earnings determined in accordance with GAAP certain non-recurring, infrequent, and other items that are not indicative of fundamental changes in the period it was outstanding, PNMR’s Series A convertible preferred stock was entitledearnings capacity of the Company’s operations. PNMR uses ongoing earnings to receive dividends equivalentevaluate the operations of the Company and to any dividends paid on PNMR common stock as if the preferred stock had been converted into common stock.establish goals, including those used for certain aspects of incentive compensation, for management and employees.
On February 19, 201620, 2018, there were 11,0578,946 holders of record of PNMR’s common stock. All of the outstanding common stock of PNM and TNMP is held by PNMR.
See Note 5 for a discussion on limitations on the payments of dividends and the payment of future dividends, as well as dividends paid by PNM and TNMP.
See Part III, Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
Preferred Stock
PNM is not aware of any active trading market for its cumulative preferred stock. Quarterly cash dividends were paid on PNM’s outstanding cumulative preferred stock at the stated rates during 20152017 and 2014.2016. PNMR and TNMP do not have any preferred stock outstanding.
Sales of Unregistered Securities
None.


A- 25A - 26

Table of Contents


ITEM 6.SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The selected financial data and comparative operating statistics for PNMR should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto and MD&A. PNMR sold First Choice on November 1, 2011. First Choice is included in the following information through October 31, 2011.
PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
2015 2014 2013 2012 20112017 2016 2015 2014 2013
(In thousands except per share amounts and ratios)(In thousands except per share amounts and ratios)
Total Operating Revenues$1,439,082
 $1,435,853
 $1,387,923
 $1,342,403
 $1,700,619
$1,445,003
 $1,362,951
 $1,439,082
 $1,435,853
 $1,387,923
Net Earnings$31,078
 $130,909
 $115,556
 $120,125
 $190,934
$95,419
 $131,896
 $31,078
 $130,909
 $115,556
Net Earnings Attributable to PNMR$15,640
 $116,254
 $100,507
 $105,547
 $176,359
$79,874
 $116,849
 $15,640
 $116,254
 $100,507
Net Earnings Attributable to PNMR per Common Share                  
Basic$0.20
 $1.46
 $1.26
 $1.32
 $1.98
$1.00
 $1.47
 $0.2
 $1.46
 $1.26
Diluted$0.20
 $1.45
 $1.25
 $1.31
 $1.96
$1.00
 $1.46
 $0.2
 $1.45
 $1.25
Cash Flow Data                  
Net cash flows from operating activities$386,874
 $414,876
 $386,587
 $281,349
 $292,240
$524,462
 $415,454
 $386,874
 $414,876
 $386,587
Net cash flows from investing activities$(544,528) $(485,329) $(331,446) $(285,895) $19,778
$(466,163) $(699,375) $(544,528) $(485,329) $(331,446)
Net cash flows from financing activities$175,431
 $96,194
 $(61,593) $(1,560) $(312,331)$(58,847) $242,392
 $175,431
 $96,194
 $(61,593)
Total Assets$6,009,328
 $5,790,237
 $5,426,858
 $5,356,411
 $5,185,931
$6,646,103
 $6,471,080
 $6,009,328
 $5,790,237
 $5,426,858
Long-Term Debt, including current installments$2,091,948
 $1,962,385
 $1,730,749
 $1,656,118
 $1,655,331
$2,437,645
 $2,392,712
 $2,091,948
 $1,962,385
 $1,730,749
Common Stock Data                  
Market price per common share at year end$30.57
 $29.63
 $24.12
 $20.51
 $18.23
$40.45
 $34.30
 $30.57
 $29.63
 $24.12
Book value per common share at year end$20.78
 $21.61
 $21.01
 $20.19
 $19.76
$21.28
 $21.04
 $20.78
 $21.61
 $21.01
Tangible book value per share at year end$17.28
 $18.12
 $17.52
 $16.70
 $16.27
$17.79
 $17.55
 $17.28
 $18.12
 $17.52
Average number of common shares outstanding – diluted80,139
 80,279
 80,431
 80,417
 89,757
80,141
 80,132
 80,139
 80,279
 80,431
Dividends declared per common share$0.820
 $0.755
 $0.680
 $0.580
 $0.500
$0.9925
 $0.9025
 $0.8200
 $0.7550
 $0.6800
Capitalization                  
PNMR common stockholders’ equity44.0% 46.6% 49.0% 49.1% 48.6%40.9% 41.1% 44.0% 46.6% 49.0%
Preferred stock of subsidiary, without mandatory redemption requirements0.3
 0.3
 0.3
 0.3
 0.3
0.3
 0.3
 0.3
 0.3
 0.3
Long-term debt55.7
 53.1
 50.7
 50.6
 51.1
58.8
 58.6
 55.7
 53.1
 50.7
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Notes: The book value per common share at year end, tangible book value per share at year end, average number of common shares outstanding, and return on average common equity reflect the 477,800 shares of PNMR Series A convertible preferred stock as if it was converted into common stock through September 23, 2011, when it was retired by PNMR.

As discussed in Note 6, the Company adopted a new accounting standard during 2015 that required debt issuance costs, which were previously included in other deferred charges on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, to be reclassified as a reduction of the related long-term debt. As discussed in Note 11, the Company adopted a new accounting standard during 2015 to present all deferred taxes as non-current rather than classifying deferred tax assets and liabilities as non-current or current. These changes were applied retroactively to all years shown above. Total assets, long-term debt, and capitalization presented in the above table have been changed from the presentation of those items in prior years to reflect the retroactive application of the changes in accounting standards.


A- 26A - 27

Table of Contents


PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIESCOMPARATIVE OPERATING STATISTICS
2015 2014 2013 2012 20112017 2016 2015 2014 2013
(In thousands)(In thousands)
PNM Revenues                  
Residential$427,958
 $411,412
 $411,579
 $409,005
 $390,380
$419,105
 $395,490
 $427,958
 $411,412
 $411,579
Commercial437,279
 428,085
 415,621
 413,332
 386,383
408,354
 394,150
 437,279
 428,085
 415,621
Industrial75,308
 73,002
 74,552
 78,637
 73,742
58,851
 56,650
 75,308
 73,002
 74,552
Public authority26,202
 25,278
 25,745
 25,495
 23,970
23,604
 23,174
 26,202
 25,278
 25,745
Economy service35,132
 39,123
 32,909
 25,354
 21,141
30,645
 31,121
 35,132
 39,123
 32,909
Transmission33,216
 38,284
 38,228
 39,373
 43,637
45,932
 34,267
 33,216
 38,284
 38,228
Firm-requirements wholesale31,263
 38,313
 42,370
 39,390
 34,127
4,468
 22,497
 31,263
 38,313
 42,370
Other sales for resale(1)63,195
 82,508
 67,538
 47,321
 69,318
101,897
 70,375
 63,195
 82,508
 67,538
Mark-to-market activity(5,270) 5,996
 293
 892
 4,214
1,317
 (1,645) (5,270) 5,996
 293
Other6,912
 5,913
 7,477
 13,465
 10,377
10,057
 9,834
 6,912
 5,913
 7,477
Total PNM Revenues$1,131,195
 $1,147,914
 $1,116,312
 $1,092,264
 $1,057,289
$1,104,230
 $1,035,913
 $1,131,195
 $1,147,914
 $1,116,312
TNMP Revenues                  
Residential$120,771
 $114,826
 $111,373
 $103,255
 $100,290
$126,587
 $124,462
 $120,771
 $114,826
 $111,373
Commercial102,956
 99,701
 95,098
 88,258
 84,896
106,503
 103,174
 102,956
 99,701
 95,098
Industrial16,316
 15,049
 13,084
 13,405
 13,065
18,140
 17,427
 16,316
 15,049
 13,084
Other67,844
 58,363
 52,056
 45,222
 39,607
89,543
 81,975
 67,844
 58,363
 52,056
Total TNMP Revenues$307,887
 $287,939
 $271,611
 $250,140
 $237,858
$340,773
 $327,038
 $307,887
 $287,939
 $271,611
First Choice Revenues         
Residential$
 $
 $
 $
 $260,161
Commercial
 
 
 
 166,498
Other
 
 
 
 12,791
Total First Choice Revenues$
 $
 $
 $
 $439,450

Notes: Under TECA, consumers in Texas can choose any REP(1) Includes sales to provide energy. TNMP delivers energyTri-State under hazard sharing agreement (Note 17).
PNM MWh Sales         
Residential3,136,066
 3,189,527
 3,185,363
 3,169,071
 3,304,350
Commercial3,774,417
 3,831,295
 3,800,472
 3,874,292
 3,954,774
Industrial850,914
 875,109
 957,308
 984,130
 1,041,160
Public authority250,500
 249,860
 246,496
 251,187
 266,368
Economy service722,501
 805,733
 796,430
 758,629
 719,342
Firm-requirements wholesale87,600
 429,345
 444,495
 527,597
 654,135
Other sales for resale (1)
3,632,137
 2,899,322
 2,110,947
 2,271,480
 2,061,851
Total PNM MWh Sales12,454,135
 12,280,191
 11,541,511
 11,836,386
 12,001,980
TNMP MWh Sales         
Residential2,936,291
 2,933,938
 2,912,019
 2,802,768
 2,796,661
Commercial2,793,263
 2,742,366
 2,654,102
 2,583,664
 2,472,979
Industrial3,202,528
 2,976,800
 2,804,919
 2,708,151
 2,576,762
Other94,767
 98,596
 100,999
 102,118
 104,516
Total TNMP MWh Sales9,026,849
 8,751,700
 8,472,039
 8,196,701
 7,950,918

(1) Includes sales to consumers within its service area regardless of the REP chosen. Therefore, TNMP earns revenue for energy delivery and REPs earn revenue on the usage of that energy by its customers. The revenues reported above for TNMP include $33.8 million received from First Choice in 2011Tri-State under hazard sharing agreement (Note 17).

First Choice is included through October 31, 2011, when it was sold by PNMR.




A- 27A - 28

Table of Contents


PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPARATIVE OPERATING STATISTICS
 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
PNM MWh Sales         
Residential3,185,363
 3,169,071
 3,304,350
 3,323,544
 3,402,842
Commercial3,800,472
 3,874,292
 3,954,774
 4,022,184
 4,043,796
Industrial957,308
 984,130
 1,041,160
 1,136,011
 1,132,110
Public authority246,496
 251,187
 266,368
 279,169
 282,062
Economy service796,430
 758,629
 719,342
 635,305
 428,757
Firm-requirements wholesale444,495
 527,597
 654,135
 651,972
 650,356
Other sales for resale2,110,947
 2,271,480
 2,061,851
 1,652,225
 2,076,869
Total PNM MWh Sales11,541,511
 11,836,386
 12,001,980
 11,700,410
 12,016,792
TNMP MWh Sales         
Residential2,912,019
 2,802,768
 2,796,661
 2,714,511
 2,862,337
Commercial2,654,102
 2,583,664
 2,472,979
 2,374,805
 2,381,872
Industrial2,804,919
 2,708,151
 2,576,762
 2,705,456
 2,558,003
Other100,999
 102,118
 104,516
 103,856
 108,664
Total TNMP MWh Sales8,472,039
 8,196,701
 7,950,918
 7,898,628
 7,910,876
First Choice MWh Sales         
Residential
 
 
 
 2,006,437
Commercial
 
 
 
 1,538,203
Total First Choice MWh Sales
 
 
 
 3,544,640

Notes:
The MWh reported above for TNMP include 836,599 for 2011, used by consumers who chose First Choice as their REP. These MWh are also included in the First Choice MWh sales.

First Choice is included through October 31, 2011, when it was sold by PNMR.
PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPARATIVE OPERATING STATISTICS
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
PNM Customers         
Residential465,950
 462,921
 459,353
 455,907
 453,218
Commercial56,655
 56,357
 56,107
 55,853
 55,447
Industrial239
 247
 250
 249
 251
Economy service1
 1
 1
 1
 1
Other sales for resale36
 36
 39
 39
 34
Other931
 887
 908
 911
 928
Total PNM Customers523,812
 520,449
 516,658
 512,960
 509,879
TNMP Consumers         
Residential207,788
 204,744
 202,359
 199,963
 196,799
Commercial39,814
 39,817
 39,014
 38,033
 37,460
Industrial82
 66
 70
 70
 70
Other1,948
 1,993
 2,018
 2,044
 2,070
Total TNMP Consumers249,632
 246,620
 243,461
 240,110
 236,399
PNM Generation Statistics         
Net Capability – MW, including PPAs (1)
2,580
 2,791
 2,787
 2,707
 2,572
Coincidental Peak Demand – MW1,843
 1,908
 1,889
 1,878
 2,008
Average Fuel Cost per MMBTU$1.704
 $1.821
 $2.168
 $2.415
 $2.237
BTU per KWh of Net Generation10,396
 9,975
 10,456
 10,422
 10,308
          
(1) 2017 amount is reflective of the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 in December 2017 and restructured ownership of SJGS Unit 4 as of December 31, 2017

The MWh reported above for TNMP for 2011 through 2014 reflect a reclassification from industrial to commercial to be consistent with current year presentation.



A- 28A - 29

Table of Contents


PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPARATIVE OPERATING STATISTICS
 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
PNM Customers         
Residential459,353
 455,907
 453,218
 450,507
 448,979
Commercial56,107
 55,853
 55,447
 54,953
 54,468
Industrial250
 249
 251
 250
 251
Economy service1
 1
 1
 1
 1
Other sales for resale39
 39
 34
 36
 28
Other908
 911
 928
 952
 983
Total PNM Customers516,658
 512,960
 509,879
 506,699
 504,710
TNMP Consumers         
Residential202,359
 199,963
 196,799
 193,550
 192,356
Commercial39,014
 38,033
 37,460
 36,819
 37,208
Industrial70
 70
 70
 70
 73
Other2,018
 2,044
 2,070
 2,037
 2,092
Total TNMP Consumers243,461
 240,110
 236,399
 232,476
 231,729
First Choice Customers         
Residential
 
 
 
 176,577
Commercial
 
 
 
 44,485
Total First Choice Customers
 
 
 
 221,062
PNMR Generation Statistics         
Net Capability – MW, including PPAs2,787
 2,707
 2,572
 2,537
 2,547
Coincidental Peak Demand – MW1,889
 1,878
 2,008
 1,948
 1,938
Average Fuel Cost per MMBTU$2.168
 $2.415
 $2.237
 $2.308
 $2.267
BTU per KWh of Net Generation10,456
 10,422
 10,308
 10,289
 10,441

Notes:
The consumers reported above for TNMP include 64,732 consumers for 2011, who chose First Choice as their REP. These TNMP customers are also included in the First Choice customers.
First Choice is as of October 31, 2011, when it was sold by PNMR.

A- 29

Table of Contents


ITEM 7.MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for PNMR is presented on a combined basis, including certain information applicable to PNM and TNMP. The MD&A for PNM and TNMP is presented as permitted by Form 10-K General Instruction I (2). A reference to a “Note” in this Item 7 refers to the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part II, Item 8, unless otherwise specified. Certain of the tables below may not appear visually accurate due to rounding.
MD&A FOR PNMR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview and Strategy
    
PNMR is a holding company with two regulated utilities serving approximately 760,000773,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers and end-users of electricity in New Mexico and Texas. PNMR’s electric utilities are PNM and TNMP.
Strategic Goals
PNMR is focused on achieving the followingthree key strategic goals:

Earning authorized returns on regulated businesses
Delivering above industry-average earnings and dividend growth
Maintaining solid investment grade credit ratings

In conjunction with these goals, PNM and TNMP are dedicated to:

Maintaining strong employee safety, plant performance, and system reliability and employee safety
Delivering a superior customer experience
Environmental leadershipDemonstrating environmental stewardship in their business operations
Supporting the communities in their service territories

Earning Authorized Returns on Regulated Businesses

PNMR’s success in accomplishing its strategic goals is highly dependent on continued favorabletwo key factors: fair and timely regulatory treatment for its utilities and theirthe utilities’ strong operating performance. The Company has multiple strategies to achieve favorable regulatory treatment, all of which have as their foundation a focus on the basics: safety, operational excellence, and customer satisfaction, while engaging stakeholders to build productive relationships. Both PNM and TNMP seek cost recovery for their investments through general rate cases and various rate riders.

Fair and timely rate treatment from regulators is crucial to PNM filedand TNMP in earning their allowed returns and critical for PNMR to achieve its strategic goals. PNMR believes that earning allowed returns is viewed positively by credit rating agencies and that improvements in the Company’s ratings could lower costs to utility customers. Also, earning allowed returns should result in increased earnings for PNMR. Additional information about rate filings is provided in Note 17.

State Regulation

New Mexico 2015 Rate Case – On September 28, 2016, the NMPRC issued an order that authorized PNM to implement an increase in base non-fuel rates of $61.2 million for New Mexico retail customers, effective for bills sent after September 30, 2016. This order was on PNM’s application for a general rate case with the NMPRCincrease in December 2014.retail electric rates (the “NM 2015 Rate Case”) filed in August 2015. PNM’s application proposed a revenuerequested an increase in base non-fuel revenues of $107.4$121.5 million effective January 1, 2016, based on a calendar 2016 future test year (“FTY”). On April 17, 2015, beginning October 1, 2015. The primary drivers of the revenue deficiency were infrastructure investments and declines in forecasted energy sales due to successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors. PNM also proposed changes to rate design to provide fairer pricing across rate classes and better align cost recovery with cost causation.

Following public hearings, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued a recommended decision in August 2016 proposing an Initial Recommended Decisionincrease in non-fuel revenues of $41.3 million (the “August 2016 RD”). The NMPRC’s September 26, 2016 order approved many aspects of the August 2016 RD, including the determination that PNM was imprudent in purchasing 64.1 MW of previously leased capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, extending the leases for 114.6 MW of capacity of PVNGS Units 1 and 2, and installing BDT

A - 30

Table of Contents


equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4. However, the order also made certain significant modifications to the August 2016 RD. Major components of the difference between the increase in non-fuel revenues approved in the order and PNM’s request, include:

A ROE of 9.575%, compared to the 10.5% requested by PNM
Inclusion of the January 2016 purchase of the assets underlying three leases of capacity, totaling 64.1 MW, of PVNGS Unit 2 (Note 7) at an initial rate base value of $83.7 million, compared to PNM’s request for recovery of the fair market value purchase price of $163.3 million; and disallowance of the recovery of the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW was being leased by PNM, which costs totaled $43.8 million when the order was issued
Disallowance of the recovery of any future contributions for PVNGS decommissioning costs related to the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 purchased in January 2016 and the 114.6 MW of the leased capacity in PVNGS Units 1 and 2 that were extended for eight years beginning January 15, 2015 and 2016 (Note 7)
Disallowance of recovery of the costs associated with converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT, which is required by the NSR permit for SJGS (Note 16), but allows recovery of avoided operating and maintenance expenses of $0.3 million annually related to BDT; PNM’s share of the costs of installing the BDT equipment was $52.3 million, $40.0 million of which PNM requested be included in rate base in the NM 2015 Rate Case
Disallowance of recovery of $4.5 million of amounts recorded as regulatory assets and deferred charges

The order continued the renewable energy rider and approved certain aspects of PNM’s proposals regarding rate design, but did not approve certain other rate design proposals or PNM’s request for a revenue decoupling pilot program. The order also proposed changes in the methods of recovering certain costs through PNM’s FPPAC and renewable energy rider. The order credited retail customers with 100% of the New Mexico jurisdictional portion of revenues from “refined coal” (a third-party pre-treatment process) at SJGS. The order approved PNM’s proposals for revised depreciation rates (with certain exceptions), and the ratemaking treatment of the “prepaid pension asset.”

On September 30, 2016, PNM filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court regarding the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case. On October 26, 2016, PNM filed a statement of issues related to its appeal with the NM Supreme Court, which stated PNM is appealing the NMPRC’s determination that PNM was imprudent in the actions taken to purchase the previously leased 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, extending the leases for 114.6 MW of capacity of PVNGS Units 1 and 2, and installing BDT equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4. Specifically, PNM’s statement indicated it is appealing the following elements of the NMPRC’s order:

Disallowance of recovery of the full fair market value purchase price of the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 purchased in January 2016
Disallowance of the recovery of the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW of capacity was leased by PNM
Disallowance of recovery of future contributions for PVNGS decommissioning attributable to 64.1 MW of purchased capacity and the 114.6 MW of capacity under the extended leases
Disallowance of recovery of the costs of converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT

NEE, NMIEC, and ABCWUA filed notices of cross appeal to PNM’s appeal. The issues that are being appealed by the various cross-appellants are:

The NMPRC allowing PNM to recover the costs of the lease extensions for the 114.6 MW of PVNGS Units 1 and 2 and any of the purchase price for the 64.1 MW in PVNGS Unit 2
The NMPRC allowing PNM to recover the costs incurred under the new coal supply contract for Four Corners
The revised method to collect PNM’s fuel and purchased power costs under the FPPAC
The final rate design
The NMPRC allowing PNM to include the “prepaid pension asset” in rate base

NEE subsequently filed a motion for a partial stay of the order at the NM Supreme Court, which was denied. The NM Supreme Court stated that the court’s intent was to request that PNM reimburse ratepayers for any amount overcharged should the cross-appellants prevail on the merits.

On February 17, 2017, PNM filed its Brief in Chief, and pursuant to the court’s rules, the briefing schedule was completed on July 21, 2017. Oral argument at the NM Supreme Court was held on October 30, 2017. Although appeals of regulatory actions of the NMPRC have a priority at the NM Supreme Court under New Mexico law, there is no required time frame for the court to act on the appeals.


A - 31

Table of Contents


PNM evaluated the accounting consequences of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case and the likelihood of being successful on the issues it is appealing in the NM Supreme Court as required under GAAP. The evaluation indicated it is reasonably possible that PNM will be successful on the issues it is appealing. If the NM Supreme Court rules in PNM’s favor on some or all of the issues, those issues would be remanded back to the NMPRC recommendingfor further action. PNM originally estimated that it would take a minimum of 15 months, from the date PNM filed its appeal, for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues. During such time, the rates specified in the order will remain in effect. Accordingly, at September 30, 2016, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $11.3 million, representing 15 months of capital cost recovery for the period October 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017 on its investments that the NMPRC findorder disallowed, as well as amounts recorded as regulatory assets and deferred charges that the order disallowed and which PNM did not challenge in its appeal. The NM Supreme Court did not render a decision on the case by December 31, 2017, the end of the originally estimated 15 month period. As of December 31, 2017, PNM updated its evaluation of the issues it is appealing in the NM Supreme Court. Although PNM cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, PNM’s application incomplete, primarily dueevaluation continues to procedural defects,indicate it is reasonably possible that PNM will be successful on the issues it is appealing and reject it. PNM disagreed withthat it will take a minimum of an additional seven months from December 31, 2017 for the Hearing Examiner’s Initial Recommended DecisionNM Supreme Court to render a decision and filed exceptions. On May 13, 2015,for the NMPRC voted to accepttake action on any remanded issues. On December 31, 2017, PNM recorded an additional pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $3.1 million, representing seven months of capital cost recovery on its investments the Initial Recommended Decisionorder disallowed. Additional losses will be recorded if the estimated time frame for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and dismissed PNM’s application.for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues is further extended.

PNM continues to believe that the disallowed investments, which are the subject of PNM’s appeal, were prudently incurred and that PNM is entitled to full recovery of those investments through the ratemaking process. If PNM’s appeal is unsuccessful, PNM would record additional pre-tax losses related to any unsuccessful issues. The December 31, 2017 book values of PNM’s investments that the order disallowed, after considering the losses recorded through December 31, 2017, were $75.3 million for the 64.1 MW of purchased capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, $39.1 million for the PVNGS Unit 2 disallowed capital improvements, and $49.4 million for the BDT equipment.

PNM does not believe that the likelihood of the cross-appeals being successful is probable. However, if the NM Supreme Court were to overturn all of the issues subject to the cross-appeals and, upon remand, the NMPRC did not provide any cost recovery of those items, PNM would write-off all of the costs to acquire the assets previously leased under three leases aggregating 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2 capacity, totaling $151.1 million at December 31, 2017 (which amount includes $75.3 million that is the subject of PNM’s appeal discussed above) after considering the losses recorded through December 31, 2017. The impacts of not recovering costs for the lease extensions, new coal supply contract for Four Corners, and “prepaid pension asset” in rate base would be recognized in future periods reflecting that rates charged to customers would not recover those costs as they are incurred. The outcomes of the cross-appeals regarding the FPPAC and rate design should not have a financial impact to PNM.

New Mexico 2016 Rate Case On August 27, 2015,December 7, 2016, PNM filed a newan application with the NMPRC for a general increase in retail electric rates. The application proposes a revenuerates (the “NM 2016 Rate Case”). PNM did not include any of the costs disallowed in the NM 2015 Rate Case that are at issue in its pending appeal to the NM Supreme Court. Key aspects of PNM’s request in the NM 2016 Rate Case were:

An increase in base non-fuel revenues of $123.5$99.2 million including base fuel revenues. The application is based
Based on a FTY beginning OctoberJanuary 1, 2015, which met2018 (the NMPRC’s rules specify that a FTY is a 12 month period beginning up to 13 months after the NMPRC’s May 2015 interpretationfiling of the FTY statute discussed below, and a rate case application)
A ROE of 10.5%. The primary drivers10.125%
Drivers of PNM’s identified revenue deficiency are infrastructure investments and declines in forecasted energy sales as a result of PNM’s successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors. The application includes several proposed
Implementation of the modifications in PNM’s resource portfolio, which were previously approved by the NMPRC as part of the SJGS regional haze compliance plan (see below and Note 16)
Infrastructure investments, including environmental upgrades at Four Corners
Declines in forecasted energy sales due to successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors
Updates in the FERC/retail jurisdictional allocations
Proposed changes to rate design to establish fair and equitable pricing across rate classes and to better align cost recovery with cost causation. Specific rate design proposals include increasedcausation
Increased customer and demand charges
A “lost contribution to fixed cost” mechanism applicable to residential and small commercial customers to address the regulatory disincentive associated with PNM’s energy efficiency programs

After NMPRC ordered settlement discussions were held, PNM and demand charges,representatives of several intervenors reached an agreement on the parameters for a revenue decoupling pilot program applicablesettlement in this proceeding. In May 2017, PNM and thirteen intervenors (the “Signatories”) entered into a comprehensive stipulation. On May 12, 2017, the Hearing Examiners issued an order rejecting the stipulation in its then current form and allowing the Signatories to residential and small power customers,revise the stipulation. On May 23, 2017, the Signatories filed a re-allocation of revenue among PNM’s customer classes, a new economic development rate, and continuation of PNM’s renewable energy rider. New rates are expected to become effective in the third quarter of 2016.revised

On May 27, 2015, the NMPRC approved an order that defines a FTY as a period that begins no later than 45 days following the filing of an application to increase rates. PNM believes that the correct interpretation of the New Mexico FTY statute allows

A- 30A - 32

Table of Contents


stipulation that addressed the issues raised by the Hearing Examiners in their order. NEE was the sole party opposing the revised stipulation. The terms of the revised stipulation included:

A revenue increase totaling $62.3 million, with an initial increase of $32.3 million beginning January 1, 2018 and the remaining increase beginning January 1, 2019
A ROE of 9.575%
Full recovery of PNM’s investment in SCRs at Four Corners with a FTYdebt-only return
An agreement not to begin upseek to 13 months afteradjust non-fuel base rate changes to be effective prior to January 1, 2020
An agreement to adjust the filingJanuary 2019 increase for certain changes in federal corporate tax laws and to true-up PNM’s cost of an application.debt
Returning to customers over a three-year period the benefit of the reduction in the New Mexico corporate income tax rate to the extent attributable to PNM’s retail operations
PNM would withdraw its proposal for a “lost contribution to fixed cost” mechanism with the issue to be addressed in a future docket
PNM would perform a cost benefit analysis in its 2020 IRP of the impact of a possible early exit from Four Corners in 2024 and 2028

A public hearing on the revised stipulation was held in August 2017. On June 25, 2015,October 31, 2017, the Hearing Examiners issued a Certification of Stipulation recommending modifications to the revised stipulation that would identify PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners as imprudent, not allow PNM to collect a debt or equity return on $148.1 million of investments in SCRs and other projects at Four Corners, and to temporarily disallow recovery of $36.8 of PNM’s projected capital improvements at SJGS. On December 20, 2017, the NMPRC issued anorder approving the Certification of Stipulation with certain changes, which included requiring the impacts of changes related to the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate and PNM’s cost of debt be implemented effective January 1, 2018 rather than January 1, 2019 and deferring further consideration regarding the prudency of PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners to a future proceeding.

On December 28, 2017, PNM filed a Notice of Appealmotion requesting rehearing and asking the NMPRC to vacate their December 20, 2017 order. Several signatories to the NMSC, challengingrevised stipulation filed a separate motion for rehearing asking that the NMPRC approve the revised stipulation without modification. NEE filed a response urging the NMPRC to reject PNM’s motion. On January 3, 2018, the NMPRC vacated its December 20, 2017 order and granted the motions for rehearing, which was held on January 10, 2018. The NMPRC issued an order dated January 10, 2018 that approved the Certification of Stipulation with certain changes, which included allowing PNM to recover its $148.1 million of investments in SCR and other projects at Four Corners with a debt-only return (but maintaining the recommended disallowance of an equity return), deferring further consideration regarding the prudency of PNM’s decisions to continue its participation in Four Corners to PNM’s next general rate case, requiring the impacts of changes related to the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate and PNM’s cost of debt be implemented in 2018 rather than January 1, 2019, and requiring PNM to reduce its requested $62.3 million increase in non-fuel revenues by $9.1 million.

On January 16, 2018, PNM requested clarifying changes to that order to adjust the $9.1 million reduction to $4.4 million, asserting that $4.7 million of the reduction was duplicative. PNM’s request was approved by the NMPRC. After implementation of changes to the federal corporate income tax rate and cost of debt, the order results in a net increase to PNM’s non-fuel revenue requirement of $10.3 million. PNM implemented 50% of the approved increase for service rendered, rather than bills rendered, on or after February 1, 2018 and will implement the rest of the increase for service rendered on or after January 1, 2019. GAAP requires PNM to recognize a loss reflecting that it will earn a debt-only return on $148.1 million of investments at Four Corners rather than a full return. Accordingly, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $27.9 million as of December 31, 2017.

On February 7, 2018, NEE filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court asking the court to review the NMPRC’s order.decisions in the NM 2016 Rate Case. The NMSC remanded this matter back tonotice does not set forth the NMPRC. On November 30, 2015, the NMPRC modified its previous order to provide for a FTY to begin up to 13 months after the filing of a rate case application and the NMPRC filed its revised order with the NMSC on December 9, 2015. On January 20, 2016, PNM and the NMPRC filed an unopposed stipulation of voluntary dismissalbasis of the appeal, which, as required by the court’s rules, is to be filed by March 9, 2018. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Advanced Metering In September 2011, TNMP began its deployment of advanced meters for homes and businesses across its service area. TNMP completed its mass deployment in 2016 and has installed more than 242,000 advanced meters. As part of the NMSC dismissedState of Texas’ long-term initiative to create an advanced electric grid, installation of advanced meters will ultimately give consumers more data about their energy consumption and help them make more informed decisions. In addition, TNMP has completed installation of a new outage management system that will leverage capabilities of the appeal on February 15, 2016.advanced metering infrastructure to enhance TNMP’s responsiveness to outages.

On February 26, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC requesting approval of a project to replace its existing customer metering equipment with Advanced Metering Infrastructure (“AMI”). The PUCT has approved mechanisms that allow TNMPapplication also asks the NMPRC to recover capital investedauthorize the recovery, in transmission and distribution projects without having to file a general rate case, which allows for more timely recovery. The NMPRC has approved rate riders for renewable energy and energy efficiency that allow for more timely recoveryfuture ratemaking proceedings, of investments and improve PNM’s ability to earn its authorized return.

In early 2013, PNM completed rate proceedings for all of its FERC regulated transmission customers and for NEC, its largest generation services customer, which improved PNM’s returns for providing those services. PNM has allocated a portion of its generation assets to serve FERC wholesale generation services customers for a number of years.  Recently, the low natural gas price environment has caused market prices for power to be substantially lower than what PNM is able to offer customers under the cost of service modelthe project, currently estimated to be $95.1 million, as well as to

A - 33

Table of Contents


approve the recovery of the remaining undepreciated investment in existing metering equipment estimated to be approximately $33 million and the costs of customer education and severance for any affected employees. During a March 2017 hearing, it was identified that FERC requiresthe proposed meter contractor may not have complied with certain New Mexico contractor licensing requirements. PNM subsequently filed testimony regarding that matter as ordered by the Hearing Examiner and requested a new procedural schedule to use.  Asallow it to issue a resultnew RFP for contracting work related to the meter installation and to update its cost-benefit analysis. An additional hearing was held in October 2017. PNM does not intend to proceed with the AMI project unless the NMPRC approves the entire application. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this change in market conditions, PNM has not been earning an adequate return on the assets required to serve wholesale contracts and has decided to stop pursuing wholesale contracts that are served with the same generation assets that serve retail customers.matter.

PNM had a PSA to supply power to NEC through 2035, which was approved by FERC in April 2013. On April 8, 2015, NEC filed a petition for a declaratory order requesting that FERC find that NEC can purchase an unlimited amount of power and energy from third party supplier(s) under the PSA. PNM intervened, requesting that FERC deny NEC’s petition. On July 16, 2015, FERC set the matter for a public hearing concerning the parties’ intent with regard to certain provisions of the PSA and held the hearing in abeyance to provide time for settlement judge procedures.

On October 29, 2015, PNM and NEC entered into, and filed with FERC, a settlement agreement that includes amendments to the PSA and related contracts, subject to FERC approval. Under the agreement, PNM would continue to serve all of NEC’s load throughPVNGS Unit 3 Through December 31, 2015 at rates that are substantially consistent with those currently provided under the PSA. In 2016, PNM would serve all of NEC’s load at reduced demand and energy rates from those under the PSA. Beginning January 1, 2016, NEC would also pay certain third-party transmission costs that it did not pay in 2014 and only partially paid in 2015. The PSA would terminate on December 31, 2016. In 2017, PNM would continue to serve 10 MW of NEC’s load under a short-term coordination tariff at a rate lower than provided under the PSA, but higher than prices currently available under short-term market rates. FERC approved the settlement on January 21, 2016. In 2015 and 2014, monthly billing demand for power supplied to NEC averaged approximately 54 MW and 55 MW and revenues were $27.1 million and $28.4 million under the PSA. Although the settlement agreement will negatively impact results of operations in 2016 and 2017, PNM expects to be able to mitigate these impacts through market sales of power that would have been sold to NEC, reductions in fuel and transmission expenses, and other measures. PNM anticipates that, in future general rate cases, assets and costs previously assigned to serve NEC will be reassigned, primarily to retail customers.

On June 29, 2014, the contract to provide power to Gallup, previously PNM’s second largest customer for wholesale generation services expired. PNM’s general rate case application discussed above includes a reallocation of costs among regulatory jurisdictions reflecting the termination of the contract to serve Gallup.

PNM currently has a pending case before FERC in which it is requesting an increase in rates charged to transmission customers based on a formula rate mechanism. On March 20, 2015, PNM along with five other parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was filed at FERC. The settlement reflects a ROE of 10% and results in an annual increase of $1.3 million above the rates approved in the previous rate case. The FERC ALJ authorized the settled rates to be implemented beginning April 1, 2015, subject to refund. There is no required time frame for FERC to act upon the settlement.

Currently, PNM’s 134 MW interest in PVNGS Unit 3 iswas excluded from NMPRC jurisdictional rates. The power generated from that interest iswas sold into the wholesale market and any earnings or losses arewere realized by shareholders. As part of compliance with the requirements for BART at SJGS discussed below, the NMPRC approved including PVNGS Unit 3 as a jurisdictional resource in the determination of rates charged to customers in New Mexico beginning in 2018. PVNGS Unit 3 is included as a jurisdictional resource in PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case (Note 17).

FairRate Riders and Interim Rate Relief – The PUCT has approved mechanisms that allow TNMP to recover capital invested in transmission and distribution projects without having to file a general rate case. This permits more timely recovery of investments. The PUCT has also approved riders that allow TNMP to recover amounts related to AMS, energy efficiency, third-party transmission costs, and the CTC. The NMPRC has approved PNM recovering fuel costs through the FPPAC, as well as rate treatmentriders for renewable energy and energy efficiency that allow for more timely recovery of investments and improve PNM’s ability to earn its authorized return.

TNMP General Rate Case – TNMP’s last general rate case was filed in 2010 with new rates becoming effective on February 1, 2011. In connection with TNMP’s deployment of its AMS, TNMP has committed to file a general rate case no later than September 1, 2018. TNMP currently anticipates filing its general rate case in May 2018 using a 2017 calendar year test period. New rates are anticipated to become effective during January 2019.

FERC Regulation

Rates PNM charges wholesale transmission customers and wholesale generation services customers are subject to traditional rate regulation by FERC. For a number of years, PNM allocated a portion of its generation assets to serve FERC wholesale generation services customers. The low natural gas price environment resulted in market prices for power being substantially lower than what PNM is able to offer wholesale generation customers under the cost of service model that FERC requires PNM to use.  As a result of this change in market conditions, PNM had not been earning an adequate return on the assets required to serve wholesale generation contracts. Consequently, PNM decided to stop pursuing wholesale generation contracts. Currently, PNM has no full-requirements wholesale generation customers.

Rates charged to wholesale electric transmission are based on a formula rate mechanism pursuant to which rates for wholesale transmission service are calculated annually in accordance with an approved formula. The formula includes updating cost of service components, including investment in plant and operating expenses, based on information contained in PNM’s annual financial report filed with FERC, as well as including projected large transmission capital projects to be placed into service in the following year. The projections included are subject to true-up in the following year formula rate. Certain items, including changes to return on equity and depreciation rates, require a separate filing to be made with FERC before being included in the formula rate.

Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. – PNM had a PSA, which contained an expiration date in 2035, to supply power to NEC that was approved by FERC in April 2013. On April 8, 2015, NEC filed a petition for a declaratory order requesting that FERC find that NEC could purchase an unlimited amount of power and energy from regulators is crucialthird party supplier(s) under the PSA. PNM intervened, requesting that FERC deny NEC’s petition. FERC set the matter for a public hearing concerning the parties’ intent with regard to certain provisions of the PSA and held the hearing in abeyance to provide time for settlement judge procedures.

On October 29, 2015, PNM and TNMP earning their allowed returns,NEC entered into, and filed with FERC, a settlement agreement, which is critical for PNMR’s abilityFERC approved in January 2016. Under the agreement, PNM served all of NEC’s load through December 31, 2015 at rates that were substantially consistent with those provided under the PSA. In 2016, PNM served all of NEC’s load at reduced demand and energy rates from those under the PSA. The PSA terminated on December 31, 2016. In 2017, PNM served 10 MW of NEC’s load under a short-term coordination tariff at a rate lower than provided under the PSA, but higher than prices available under short-term market rates at the time of the settlement. In 2017, 2016 and 2015, revenues from NEC were $4.5 million, $20.0 million, and $27.1 million. Although the settlement agreement negatively impacted results of operations in 2017, PNM mitigated these impacts through market sales of power that would have been sold to achieve its strategic goals. PNMR believes that if the utilities earn their allowed returns, it would be viewed positively by credit rating agenciesNEC, reductions in fuel and would further improve the Company’s ratings, which could lower costs to utility customers. Also, earning allowed returns should result in increased earnings for PNMR, which would lead to increased growth in EPS.transmission expenses, and other measures. PNM’s NM


A- 31A - 34

Table of Contents


Additional information about rate filings is provided in Note 17.2016 Rate Case discussed above reflects a reallocation of costs among regulatory jurisdictions reflecting the termination of the contract to serve NEC.
Delivering Above Industry-Average Earnings and Dividend Growth
PNMR’s strategic goal to deliver above industry-average earnings and dividend growth enables investors to realize the value of their investment in the Company’s business. PNMR’s current target is seven to nine percent6% earnings growth for the period 2018 through 2019.2021. Earnings growth is based on ongoing earnings, which is a non-GAAP financial measure that excludes from GAAP earnings certain non-recurring, infrequent, and other items fromthat are not indicative of fundamental changes in the earnings determined in accordance with GAAP.capacity of the Company’s operations. PNMR uses ongoing earnings to evaluate the operations of the Company and to establish goals, including those used for certain aspects of incentive compensation, for management and employees.

PNMR targets a dividend payout ratio of 50% to 60% of its ongoing earnings. PNMR expects to provide above-averageabove industry-average dividend growth in the near-term and to manage the payout ratio to meet its long-term target. The Board will continue
to evaluate the dividend on an annual basis, considering sustainability and growth, capital planning, and industry standards. The Board approved the following increases in the indicated annual common stock dividend:
Approval Date Percent Increase
February 2012 16%16%
February 2013 14%14%
December 2013 12%12%
December 2014 8%8%
December 2015 10%10%
December 201610%
December 20179%

Maintaining Solid Investment Grade Credit Ratings

The Company is committed to maintaining solid investment grade credit ratings in order to reduce the cost of debt financing and to help ensure access to credit markets, when required. See the subheading Liquidity included in the full discussion of Liquidity and Capital Resources below for the specific credit ratings for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP. On December 21, 2015, S&P raised by one notch the issuer credit ratings for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP and the debt ratings for PNM and TNMP, with a stable outlook. Currently, all of the credit ratings issued by both Moody’s and S&P on the Company’s debt are investment grade. In June 2017, Moody’s changed the outlook for PNMR and PNM from stable to positive while maintaining a stable outlook for TNMP. In January 2018, S&P changed the outlook for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP from stable to negative.

Business and Strategic Focus

PNMR strives to create enduring value for customers, communities, and stockholders.shareholders. PNMR’s strategy and decision-making are focused on safely providing reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible power. PNMRThe Company works closely with customers, stakeholders, legislators, and regulators to ensure that resource plans and infrastructure investments benefit from robust public dialogue and balance the diverse needs of our communities. Equally important areis the focus of PNMR’s utilities’ focusutilities on customer satisfaction and community engagement.

Reliable and Affordable Power
PNMR and its utilities are aware of the important roles they play in enhancing economic vitality in their New Mexico and Texas service territories. Management believes that maintaining strong and modern electric infrastructure is critical to ensuring reliability and supporting economic growth. When consideringcontemplating expanding or relocating to other communities,their operations, businesses consider energy affordability and reliability to be important factors. PNM and TNMP strive to balance service affordability with infrastructure investment to maintain a high level of electric reliability and to deliver a superior customer experience. The utilities also work to ensure that rates reflect actual costs of providing service.
Investing in PNM’s and TNMP’s infrastructure is critical to ensuring reliability and meeting future energy needs. Both utilities have long-established records of providing customers with reliable electric service. Through 2014, both PNM and TNMP ranked in the top quartile nationally for reliability for three out of the previous five years. In 2014, PNM delivered its best reliability performance in the past seven years and TNMP’s reliability was its best in a decade. PNM anticipates again being in the top quartile for 2015 despite 2015 being one of the wettest years on record in New Mexico, whereas TNMP’s reliability was more negatively impacted by violent weather events accompanied with record amounts of rain in certain areas of Texas.
In September 2011, TNMP began its deployment of advanced meters for homes and businesses across its Texas service area. Through the end of 2015, TNMP had completed installation of more than 218,000 advanced meters, which is approximately 91% of the anticipated total. TNMP’s deployment is expected to be completed in 2016.
As part of the State of Texas’ long-term initiative to create an advanced electric grid, installation of advanced meters will ultimately give consumers more data about their energy consumption and help them make more informed decisions. In addition,

A- 32

Table of Contents


TNMP recently completed installation of a new outage management system that will leverage capabilities of the advanced metering infrastructure to enhance TNMP’s responsiveness to outages.

Utility Plant and Strategic Investments

Utility Plant Investments During the 20132015 to 20152017 period, PNM and TNMP together invested $1,302.4$1,552.0 million in utility plant, including substations, power plants, nuclear fuel, and transmission and distribution systems. In 2012, PNM announced plans forcompleted the 40 MW natural gas-fired La Luz peaking generating station to be located near Belen, New Mexico. Construction began in April 2015 and the facility went into serviceMexico in December 2015. PNM also completed installation of SNCR and BDT equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4 in early 2016 and the addition of 40 MW of PNM-owned solar

A - 35

Table of Contents


PV facilities in 2015. In addition, inon January 15, 2016, PNM completed the $163.3 million acquisition of 6464.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 that had previously been leased to PNM.

Strategic Investments – In 2017, PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners created NM Renewable Development, LLC (“NMRD”) to pursue the acquisition, development, and ownership of renewable energy generation projects, primarily in the state of New Mexico. Abundant renewable resources, large tracts of affordable land, and strong government and community support make New Mexico a favorable location for renewable generation. New Mexico has the 2nd highest technical potential of the 48 contiguous states for utility scale solar photovoltaics as noted in 2015 by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, while New Mexico is 6th for technical potential for land-based wind. PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners each have a 50% ownership interest in NMRD. Through NMRD, PNMR anticipates being able to provide additional renewable generation solutions to customers within and surrounding its regulated jurisdictions through partnering with a subsidiary of one of the United States’ largest electric utilities. The formation of this joint venture provides a more efficient use of PNMR’s capital to support new renewable investment opportunities while maintaining the necessary capital to support investments required by PNM’s regulated jurisdictions. NMRD’s current renewable energy capacity under contract is 31.8 MW. This includes 11.8 MW of solar PV facilities currently in operation, consisting of 10 MW required to supply energy to a new data center in PNM’s service territory (Note 17) and 1.8 MW to supply energy to Columbus Electric Cooperative located in southwest New Mexico. At December 31, 2017, NMRD also had 20 MW of solar PV facilities under construction, which will be completed in mid-2018 and will also be used to supply the new data center. NMRD is actively exploring opportunities for additional renewable projects. In addition, NMRD will evaluate potential bid opportunities for future renewable projects, including large-scale projects to serve future data center and other customer needs.

Integrated Resource Plan

NMPRC rules require that investor ownedinvestor-owned utilities file an IRP every three years. The IRP is required to cover a 20-year planning period and contain an action plan covering the first four years of that period. PNM filed its 2014 IRP on July 1, 2014. The four-year action plan was consistent with the replacement resources identified in PNM’s application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. PNM indicated that it planned to meet its anticipated energy demand with a combination of additional renewable energy resources, energy efficiency, and natural gas-fired facilities.

PNM filed its 2017 IRP on July 3, 2017. Under the NMPRC’s order concerning SJGS’ compliance with the BART requirements of the CAA discussed in Note 16, PNM is required to make a filing in 2018 to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after June 30, 2022. The 2017 IRP analyzed several scenarios utilizing assumptions that PNM continues service from its SJGS capacity beyond mid-2022 and that PNM retires its capacity after mid-2022. Key findings of the 2017 IRP include:

Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 after the expiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements would provide long-term cost savings for PNM’s customers
PNM exiting its ownership interest in Four Corners after its current coal supply agreement expires in 2031 would also provide long-term cost savings for customers
The best mix of new resources to replace the retired coal generation would include solar energy and flexible natural gas-fired peaking capacity; the mix could include energy storage if the economics support it and wind energy provided additional transmission capacity becomes available
Significant increases in future wind energy supplies will likely require new transmission capacity to be built from eastern New Mexico to PNM’s service territory
PNM should retain the currently leased capacity in PVNGS, which would avoid replacement with carbon-emitting generation
PNM should continue to develop and implement energy efficiency and demand management programs
PNM should assess the costs and benefits of participating in the California Energy Imbalance Market
PNM should analyze its current Reeves Generating Station to consider possible technology improvements to phase out the older generators and replace them with new, more flexible supplies or energy storage

Several parties filed protests to the 2017 IRP. The issues addressed in the protests include PNM’s future interest in SJGS, Four Corners, and PVNGS and the timing of future procurement of renewable resources. The 2017 IRP is not a final determination of PNM’s future generation portfolio. Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS capacity and exiting Four Corners would require NMPRC approval of abandonment filings, which PNM would make at appropriate times in the future. Likewise, NMPRC approval of new generation resources through CCN filings would be required. PNM cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the 2017 IRP process or whether the NMPRC will approve subsequent filings that would encompass actions to implement the conclusions of the 2017 IRP.

A - 36

Table of Contents


Environmentally Responsible Power
PNMR has a long-standing record of environmental stewardship. PNM’s environmental focus has been in three key areas:

Developing strategies to meet regional haze rules at the coal-fired SJGS as cost-effectively as possible while providing broad environmental benefits that also demonstrate progress in addressing new federal regulations for CO2 emissions from existing power plants
Preparing to meet New Mexico’s increasing renewable energy requirements as cost-effectively as possible
Increasing energy efficiency participation

PNM continues its effortsPNMR’s Sustainability Portal provides key environmental and sustainability information related to reduce the amount of fresh water usedPNM’s and TNMP’s operations and is available at http://www.pnmresources.com/about-us/sustainability-portal.aspx. The portal also contains a Climate Change Report, which outlines plans to make electricity (about 25% more efficientbe coal-free by 2031 (subject to regulatory approval). This could enable an 87% reduction in CO2 emissions in 2040 compared to 2012 levels. This is a significantly greater reduction than in 2002).  Continued growth in PNM’s fleet of solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources, energy efficiency programs, and innovative uses of gray water and air-cooling technology have contributed to this reduction.  Water usage will continue to decline as PNM substitutes less fresh-water-intensive generation resources for SJGS Units 2 and 3 starting in 2018 (reducing water consumption at that plant by around 50%).  Focusing on responsible stewardshiprequired of New Mexico’s scarce water resources improves PNM’s water-resilience in the face of persistent drought and ever-increasing demands for water to spur the growth of New Mexico’s economy. In addition to the above areas of focus, the Company is working to reduce the amount of solid waste going to landfills through increased recycling and reduction of waste. The Company has performed well in this area in the past and expects to continue to do so in the future.Mexico under EPA’s Clean Power Plan.
Renewable Energy
PNM’s renewable procurement strategy includes utility-owned solar capacity, as well as wind and geothermal energy purchased under PPAs. As of December 31, 2015, PNM had 107 MW of utility-owned solar capacity, including 40 MW completed in 2015. The application for a general rate increase discussed above includes recovery of the costs associated with the new 40 MW solar facilities. In addition, PNM purchases power from a customer-owned distributed solar generation program that had an installed capacity of 49.5 MW at December 31, 2015. PNM also owns the 500 KW PNM Prosperity Energy Storage Project, which uses advanced batteries to store solar power and dispatch the energy either during high-use periods or when solar production is limited. The project features one of the largest combinations of battery storage and PV energy in the nation and involves extensive research and development of advanced grid concepts. The facility was the nation’s first solar storage facility fully integrated into a utility’s power grid. Since 2003, PNM has purchased the output from a 204 MW wind facility and began purchasing the output of another existing 102 MW wind energy center on January 1, 2015. PNM has a 20-year agreement to purchase energy from a geothermal facility built near Lordsburg, New Mexico. The facility began providing power to PNM in January 2014. The current capacity of the facility is 4 MW and future expansion may result in up to 9 MW of generation capacity. PNM also purchases RECs as necessary to meet the RPS.
These renewable resources are key means for PNM to meet the RPS and related regulations, which require PNM to achieve prescribed levels of energy sales from renewable sources, if that can be accomplished without exceeding the RCT limit set by the NMPRC. PNM makes renewable procurements consistent with the plans approved by the NMPRC. PNM’s 2016 renewable energy procurement plan meets RPS and diversity requirements within the RCT in 2016 and 2017. PNM will continue to procure renewable resources while balancing the impact to customers’ bills in order to meet New Mexico’s escalating RPS requirements.
SJGS

Regional Haze Rule Compliance Plan In December 2015, PNM received NMPRC approval for the plan to comply with the EPA regional haze rule at SJGS in a manner that minimizes the cost impact to customers while still achieving broad environmental benefits. Additional information

A- 33



about BARTSNCRs on SJGS Units 1 and 4 was completed in early 2016 and Units 2 and 3 were retired in December 2017. The plan provides for similar visibility improvements, but at SJGS is contained in Note 16.
In August 2011,a lower cost to PNM customers than a previous EPA issued a FIP for regional hazeruling that would have required the installation of more expensive SCRs on all four units at SJGS by September 2016. However, PNM, NMED, and EPA agreed on February 15, 2013 to pursue a revised plan that could provide a new BART path to comply with federal visibility rules at SJGS. The terms of the non-binding agreement would result in the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 by the end of 2017 and the installation of SNCRs on Units 1 and 4 by the later of January 31, 2016 or 15 months after EPA approval of a RSIP from the State of New Mexico. A RSIP was approved by the EIB and EPA. Installation of SNCRs and related BDT equipment has been completed within the timeframe contained in the RSIP.

The RSIP provides for similar visibility improvements as the installation of SCRs on all four units at SJGS at a lower cost to PNM customers. Itplan has the added advantage of reducing other emissions beyondin addition to NOx, including SO2, particulate matter, CO2, and mercury, as well as reducing water usage. Additional information is contained in Note 16.

In December 2013, PNM made a filing withUnder the NMPRC requesting certain approvals necessary to effectuatekey provisions of the RSIP. In October 2014, PNM filed a stipulation withorder approving the NMPRC that, if approved, would have settled the case. A public hearing in the NMPRC case was held in January 2015. On April 8, 2015, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued a Certification of Stipulation, which recommended that the NMPRC reject the stipulation as proposed. Among other things, the certification cited the lack of final restructuring and post-2017 coal supply agreements for SJGS. PNM filed final executed restructuring and post-2017 coal supply agreements for SJGS in July 2015.compliance plan, PNM:

Following a NMPRC ordered facilitation process, PNM and several intervenors in the case agreed to a settlement agreement, which was filed with the NMPRC in August 2015. NEE filed in opposition to the agreement. The stipulating parties agreed that the October 2014 stipulation should be approved, as modified by the settlement agreement (collectively, the “Stipulated Settlement”). Under the terms of the Stipulated Settlement, PNM will:

RetireRetired SJGS Units 2 and 3 (PNM’s current ownership interest totalswas 418 MW) atin December 31, 2017 and will recover, over 20 years, 50% (currently estimated to be approximately $127.6($125.5 million) of their undepreciated net book value at that date and earn a regulated return on those costs
Be granted a CCN forAcquired an additional 132 MW in SJGS Unit 4 under an approved CCN, with an initial book value of zero plus SNCR costs and whatever portion of BDT costs the NMPRC determines to be reasonable and prudent to be allowed for recovery in rates (an aggregate of $20.7 million) (see New Mexico Rate Cases above and Note 17)
BeWas granted a CCN for 134 MW of PVNGS Unit 3 with an initial rate base value equal to the book value as of December 31, 2017 (estimated to be approximately $150($154.9 million)
Be authorized to acquireAcquired 65 MW of SJGS Unit 4 as merchant utility plant, which wouldwill not be included in rates charged to retail customers
AccelerateWill accelerate recovery of SNCR costs on SJGS Units 1 and 4 so that the costs are fully recovered by July 1, 2022 (cost recovery for PNM’s BDT project on those units will be determined in PNM’s next general rate case)
MakeIs required to make a NMPRC filing in 2018 to determine the extent that SJGS should continue serving PNM’s customers’ needs after mid-2022
RetireWill acquire and retire one MWh of RECs that include a zero-CO2 emission attribute beginning January 1, 2020 for every MWh produced by 197 MW of coal-fired generation from PNM’s ownership share of SJGS (the cost of these RECs would be capped at $7.0 million per year and recovered in rates)
NotDid not recover approximately $20 million of increased operations and maintenance expenses and other costs incurred in connection with CAA compliance

A hearing on the Stipulated Settlement was held from October 13, 2015 through October 20, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the Hearing Examiner issued a Certification of Stipulation, essentially adopting the Stipulated Settlement. On December 16, 2015, following oral argument, the NMPRC issued a final order adopting the Certification of Stipulation issued by the Hearing Examiner.  The Hearing Examiner’s certification included a non-substantive change, which the signatories subsequently approved.

At December 31, 2015, PNM recorded a $127.6pre-tax losses aggregating $165.7 million regulatory disallowance to reflect the write-off of the 50% of the estimated December 31, 2017 net book value of SJGS Units 2 and 3 that will not be recovered. A regulatory disallowance of $21.6 million was also recorded at December 31, 2015 forrecovered, the other unrecoverable costs, based onand the approved Stipulated Settlement. Theincrease in the estimated liability recorded for coal mine reclamation resulting from the new coal mine reclamation arrangement entered into in conjunction with the new coal supply agreement (“SJGS CSA”),. PNM recorded additional pre-tax losses of $3.7 million in 2016 and reversed previously recorded losses of $4.0 million in 2017 resulting from revised estimates of these items. Additional information about the SJGS CSA is discussed below and further described under Coal Supply in Note 16, resulted in a $16.5 million increase in the estimated liability recorded for coal mine reclamation. The expense recorded for this increase and the above disallowances are included in regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings (Loss).16.

On January 14, 2016, NEE filed a notice of appeal with the NMSC, a Notice of AppealNM Supreme Court of the NMPRC’s December 16, 2016 final2015 order. In addition,The NM Supreme Court has taken no action on February 5,the appeal and there is no required time frame for the court to act on the appeal. On March 31, 2016, NEE filed a complaint against PNM with the NMPRC a motion for reconsiderationregarding the financing provided by NM Capital to facilitate the sale of SJCC. The complaint alleges that final order based on recent developments relatedPNM failed to comply with its discovery obligation in the SJGS abandonment case and requests the NMPRC investigate whether the financing transactions could adversely affect PNM’s ability to provide electric service to its retail customers. PNM responded to the loan made by NM Ccomplaint on May 4, 2016. The NMPRC has taken no action on this matter.


A- 34A - 37



apital to facilitate the sale of SJCC, which is discussed below. NEE alleges the loan is a transaction that, under the New Mexico Public Utility Act, requires prior NMPRC approval. PNM filed its response to NEE’s motion for reconsideration on February 18, 2016.

SJGS Ownership Restructuring In connection with the implementation of the RSIP and the proposed retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3, some of the SJGS participants expressed a desire to exit their ownership in the plant. As a result, the SJGS participants began negotiatingnegotiated a restructuring of the ownership in SJGS as well as addressingand addressed the obligations of the exiting participants for plant decommissioning, mine reclamation, environmental matters, and certain future operating costs, among other items.

In June 2014, non-binding arrangements were reached among the SJGS owners that identified the participants who would be exiting active participation in SJGS effective December 31, 2017 and participants, including PNM, who would retain an interest in the ongoing operation of one or more units of SJGS. These arrangements provided the essential terms of restructured ownership of SJGS. These arrangements recognized the need to have greater certainty in regard to the economic cost and availability of fuel for SJGS for the period after December 31, 2017. See Coal Supply in Note 16.

The San Juan Project Restructuring Agreement (“SJGS RA”) sets forth the agreement among the SJGS owners regarding ownership restructuring and contains many of therestructuring. Key provisions of the June 2014 arrangements.SJGS RA include:

Capacity acquisition – On December 31, 2017, PNM willwas to acquire 132 MW and PNMR Development was to acquire 65 MW of the exiting owners’ capacity in SJGS Unit 4 from the California owners and4. PNMR Development will acquire 65 MW of such capacity. It is currently anticipated that PNMR Development will transferassigned the rights and obligations related to the 65 MW to PNM prior toeffective on December 31, 2017, in order to facilitate dispatch of power from that capacity. The Stipulated Settlement provides thatAs ordered by the NMPRC, PNM wouldwill treat the 65 MW as merchant utility plant that wouldwill be excluded from retail rates. In anticipation of the transfer of ownership, PNM entered into agreements to sell the power from 36 MW of that capacity to a third party at a fixed price for the period January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2022.
Coal inventory – The SJGS RA also sets forth the terms under which PNM would acquireacquired the coal inventory of the exiting SJGS participants as of January 1, 2016 and will providesupplied coal supply to the exiting participants during the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017, which arrangement PNM believes will provideprovided economic benefits that will bewere passed on to PNM’s customers through the FPPAC.

Coal supply – The SJGS RA became effective contemporaneously with the effectiveness of the new CSA for SJGS.SJGS CSA. The effectiveness of the new SJGS CSA was dependent on the closing of the purchase of the existing coal mine operation by a new mine operator, which as discussed in Note 16 occurred on January 31, 2016. In support of the closing of the mine purchase and to facilitate PNM customer savings, NM Capital, a wholly ownedwholly-owned subsidiary of PNMR, provided funding of $125.0 million to Westmoreland San Juan, LLC (“WSJ”), a ring-fenced, bankruptcy-remote, special-purpose entity that is a subsidiary of Westmoreland Coal Company (the “Purchaser”) to finance the purchase price. NM Capital was able to provide the $125.0 million financing to the PurchaserWSJ by first entering into a $125.0 million term loan agreement with a commercial bank. PNMR guarantees NM Capital’s obligations to the obligations of NM Capital.bank. The Westmoreland loan has a maturity date ofLoan matures on February 1, 2021 and initially bearshad an initial interest at arate of 7.25% rate plus LIBOR, andwhich escalates over time. The PurchaserSuch rate is 12.25% plus LIBOR for the period from February 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019. WSJ must pay principal and interest quarterly to NM Capital in accordance with an amortization schedule. The Westmoreland loan has been structured to encourage prepayments and early retirementAs of February 20, 2018, the balance of the debt.Westmoreland Loan was $51.0 million.

Coal mine reclamation – Under the terms of the SJGS CSA, PNM and the other SJGS owners are obligated to compensate SJCC for all reclamation liabilitiescosts associated with the supply of coal from the San Juan mine. In connection with certain mining permits relating to the operation of the San Juan mine, SJCC is required to post reclamation bonds, of $161.6which currently aggregate $118.7 million, with the New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division. In orderNMMMD. PNMR has arrangements under which a bank has issued $30.3 million in letters of credit to facilitate the posting of the required reclamation bonds, PNMR, Westmoreland, and SJCC entered into a Reclamation Bond Agreement (the “Reclamation Bond Agreement”) with a surety. In connection with the Reclamation Bond Agreement, PNMR used $40.0 million of the available capacity under the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility to support a bank letter of credit arrangement with the surety.bonds. See Note 16.

The NM Capital loan and the letter of credit appear to result in PNMR being considered to have a variable interest in the Purchaser, including its subsidiary, SJCC.  Both of those entities would likely be considered to be variable interest entities (“VIEs”).  Under GAAP an enterprise that has the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of a VIE  is considered to be the VIE’s primary beneficiary and is required to consolidate the VIE.  Although PNMR has not completed its analysis of these arrangements, PNMR’s preliminary conclusion is that Westmoreland, as the parent of the Purchaser, has the ability to direct the SJCC mining operations, which will be the factor that most significantly impacts the economic performance of the Purchaser.  Accordingly, PNMR currently believes Westmoreland, and not PNMR, is the primary beneficiary of the Purchaser and that PNMR would not consolidate the Purchaser.

PNM, as theOther SJGS operating agent, presented the SNCR project to the participants in Unit 1 and Unit 4 for approval in late October 2013. The project was approved for Unit 1, but the Unit 4 project did not obtain the required percentage of votes for approval. Other capital projects related to Unit 4 also were not approved by the participants. PNM is authorized and obligated under the SJPPA to take reasonable and prudent actions necessary for the successful and proper operation of SJGS pending resolution by the participants. Accordingly, PNM has requested that the owners of Unit 4 approve expenditures critical to being able to comply with the time frame in the RSIP with respect to Unit 4 project. The Unit 4 owners did not approve the requests.

A- 35



Therefore, PNM issued several “Prudent Utility Practice” notices that, under the SJPPA, PNM was continuing certain critical activities to keep the Unit 4 project on schedule.
Environmental Matters In addition to the regional haze rule, SJGS is required to comply with other rules currently being developed or implemented that affect coal-fired generating units, including rules regarding GHG under Section 111(d) of the CAA. Implementation of the Clean Power Plan, which was published by EPA in October 2015, is currently stayed by order of the US Supreme Court pending further proceedings before the DC Circuit. Oral argument was heard by the DC Circuit in September 2016, but the court has taken no action. On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Energy Independence.  The order sets out two general policies: promote clean and safe development of energy resources, while avoiding regulatory burdens, and ensure electricity is affordable, reliable, safe, secure, and clean.  The order rescinds various actions undertaken by the previous administration and directs the EPA Administrator to review and if appropriate suspend, revise, or rescind the Clean Power Plan, as well as other environmental regulations. On October 10, 2017, EPA issued a proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan based on a legal interpretation of the CAA under which the Clean Power Plan exceeds EPA’s statutory authority. EPA published the proposed repeal rule on October 16, 2017 and is accepting public comments until April 26, 2018. In addition, EPA published an advanced NOPR on December 28, 2017 to take comment on whether EPA should adopt a rule to replace the Clean Power Plan and what such a replacement rule might include, for which public comments were due February 26, 2018.
PNM estimates that implementation of the BART plan at SJGS, as well as potentially exiting ownership in the remaining units at SJGS (as well as Four Corners), as discussed above, should provide significant steps for New Mexico to meet its ultimate compliance with Section 111(d) under the Clean Power Plan or any replacement rule. PNM is unable to predict the impact of this rule on its fossil-fueled generation.

Because of environmental upgrades completed in 2009, SJGS ishas a mercury removal efficiency of 98% and mercury emissions are well positioned to outperformbelow the mercury limit imposed by EPA in the 2011 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The majorMajor environmental upgrades on each of the four units at SJGS have significantly reduced emissions of NOx, SO2, particulate matter, and mercury. Since

A - 38



Between 2006 and 2017, SJGS has reduced NOx emissions by 49%41%, SO2 by 77%70%, particulate matter by 78%61%, and mercury by 98%.

A - 39



Renewable Energy
PNM’s renewable procurement strategy includes utility-owned solar capacity, as well as wind and geothermal energy purchased under PPAs. As of December 31, 2017, PNM had 107 MW of utility-owned solar capacity. In addition, PNM purchases power from a customer-owned distributed solar generation program that had an installed capacity of 81.6 MW at December 31, 2017. PNM also owns the 500 KW PNM Prosperity Energy Storage Project, which uses advanced batteries to store solar power and dispatch the energy either during high-use periods or when solar production is limited. The project was one of the first combinations of battery storage and PV energy in the nation and involved extensive research and development of advanced grid concepts. The facility also was the nation’s first solar storage facility fully integrated into a utility’s power grid. Since 2003, PNM has purchased the output from New Mexico Wind, a 204 MW wind facility, and began purchasing the output of Red Mesa Wind, an existing 102 MW wind energy center, on January 1, 2015. PNM has a 20-year agreement to purchase energy from the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility built near Lordsburg, New Mexico. The geothermal facility, which has a current capacity of 4 MW, began providing power to PNM in January 2014. PNM also purchases RECs as necessary to meet the RPS.
The majority of these renewable resources are key means for PNM to meet the RPS and related regulations that require PNM to achieve prescribed levels of energy sales from renewable sources, if that can be accomplished without exceeding the RCT limit set by the NMPRC. PNM makes renewable procurements consistent with the plans approved by the NMPRC. PNM’s 2017 renewable energy procurement plan meets RPS and diversity requirements for 2017 and 2018 using existing resources and does not propose any significant new procurements. The NMPRC approved the plan on November 23, 2016. On June 1, 2017, PNM filed its 2018 renewable energy procurement plan. PNM requested approval to procure an additional 80 GWh in 2019 and 105 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of New Mexico Wind; approval to procure an additional 55 GWh in 2019 and 77 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal; approval to procure 50 MW of new solar facilities to be constructed beginning in 2018; continuation of customer REC purchase programs; and other purchases of RECs to ensure annual compliance with the RPS. A public hearing on the application was held in September 2017. On October 17, 2017, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision that PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan be approved by the NMPRC, except for the re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal and PNM’s request to procure 50 MW of new solar facilities. The Hearing Examiner recommended that the PPA for the output of energy from Lightning Dock Geothermal be terminated effective January 1, 2018. The Hearing Examiner also recommended that PNM be required to issue another all-renewables RFP allowing developers to utilize PNM-owned sites to construct facilities, the output from which facilities would be sold to PNM through PPAs. PNM disagreed with the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and filed exceptions contesting the Hearing Examiner’s proposals. On November 15, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order approving PNM’s plan and rejecting the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations. NMIEC filed an appeal with the NM Supreme Court objecting to the fuel allocation methodology. NEE filed a motion to intervene and cross-appeal objecting to the approval of the 50 MW of new solar facilities. PNM filed a motion to intervene. The NM Supreme Court granted the motions to intervene. NMIEC filed a motion for a partial stay and PNM filed a response opposing the request. A briefing schedule has not been determined. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

In late 2017, PNM entered into three separate 25-year PPAs to purchase renewable energy and RECs to be used by PNM to supply additional renewable power to Facebook, Inc. These PPAs are subject to NMPRC approval and PNM made a filing requesting approval on January 17, 2018 (Note 17). These PPAs include the purchase of the power and RECs from a 50 MW wind project to be operational at December 31, 2018, a 166 MW wind project to be operational in November 2020, and a 50 MW solar project to be operational in December 2021.
PNM will continue to procure renewable resources while balancing the impact to customers’ electricity costs in order to meet New Mexico’s escalating RPS requirements.
Energy Efficiency
    
Energy efficiency also plays a significant role in helping to keep customers’ electricity costs low while continuing to meetmeeting their energy needs. PNM’s and TNMP’s energy efficiency and load management portfolios continue to achieve robust results. In 2015,2017, annual energy saved as a result of PNM’s portfolio of energy efficiency programs was approximately 7978 GWh. This is equivalent to the annual consumption of approximately 10,90011,500 homes in PNM’s service territory. PNM’s load management and annual energy efficiency programs also help lower peak demand requirements. TNMP’s energy efficiency programs in 20152017 resulted in energy savings totaling an estimated 1821 GWh. This is equivalent to the annual consumption of approximately 1,6602,300 homes in TNMP’s service territory. In April 2016 and again in April 2017, TNMP was recognized by Energy Star for TNMP’s successful energy efficiency efforts. TNMP received the “Partner of the Year Energy Efficiency Delivery Award” for its High-Performance Homes Program.


A - 40



Water Conservation and Solid Waste Reduction

PNM continues its efforts to reduce the amount of fresh water used to make electricity (about 20% more efficient than in 2007).  Continued growth in PNM’s fleet of solar and wind energy sources, energy efficiency programs, and innovative uses of gray water and air-cooling technology have contributed to this reduction.  Water usage will continue to decline as PNM substitutes less fresh-water-intensive generation resources to replace SJGS Units 2 and 3 starting in 2018, when water consumption at that plant will be reduced by around 50%.  Focusing on responsible stewardship of New Mexico’s scarce water resources improves PNM’s water-resilience in the face of persistent drought and ever-increasing demands for water to spur the growth of New Mexico’s economy. In addition to the above areas of focus, the Company is working to reduce the amount of solid waste going to landfills through increased recycling and reduction of waste. In 2017, 18 of the Company’s 23 facilities met the solid waste diversion goal of a 60% diversion rate, while recycling at least the same number of waste streams as 2016. The Company expects to continue to do well in this area in the future.

Customer, Stakeholder, and Community Engagement

The Company strives to deliver a superior customer experience. Through outreach, collaboration, and various community-oriented programs, the Company has a demonstrated commitment to build productive relationships with stakeholders, including customers, community partners, regulators, intervenors, legislators, and shareholders. PNM continues to focus its efforts to enhance the customer experience through customer service improvements, including billing and payment options, strategic customer engagement, and improved communications. These efforts are supported by understandingmarket research to understand the dynamicvarying needs of its customers, through ongoing market research, identifying and establishing best-in-classvalued services and programs, and proactively communicating and engaging with customers at a regional and community level. Beginning in 2013, PNM refocused its efforts to improve the customer experience through an integrated marketing andlevels.
The Company has leveraged a number of communications strategy that encompassed brand repositioning and advertising, customer service improvements, including billing and payment options,channels and strategic customercontent to better serve and stakeholder engagement.

PNM continues to expandengage its environmental stakeholder outreach, piloting small environmental stakeholder dialogue groups on key issues such as renewable energy and energy efficiency planning. Recognizingmany stakeholders. PNM’s website, www.pnm.com, provides the importancedetails of environmental stewardship to customers and other stakeholders, PNM expanded engagement with environmental stakeholders to promote ongoing dialogue and input. Similarly, PNM proactively communicates with communities about its efforts and plans related to environmental stewardship. Customers take note of PNM’s efforts in this area. A nationally recognized customer satisfaction benchmark revealed gains in awareness of PNM’s efforts to improve environmental impact, as well as customer perceptions around the commitment to preserving the environment now and for future generations.

PNM expanded its integrated communication efforts with the launch of a new customer information website focused on PNM’s major regulatory filings, including BART at SJGS and PNM’s general rate case. The website, www.PowerforProgress.com, provides the details of current requests, as well as the background on PNM’s efforts to maintain reliability, keep prices affordable, and protect the environment. In May 2017, a chat function was added to PNM’s website to allow customers options when communicating with its customer service representatives and an online management system was launched to expedite solar interconnection applications from retail customers. The website is designedcontinues to be a resource for the facts about PNM’s operations and community support efforts, including plans for building a sustainable energy future for New Mexico. In September 2016, PNMR launched a dedicated sustainability portal on its corporate website www.pnmresources.comto provide additional information regarding the Company’s environmental and other sustainability efforts. The site provides the key corporate governance and sustainability information related to the operations of PNM and TNMP. In January 2018, PNM added a Climate Change Report to this portal. The information is presented under four main headings: Environment, Social, Economic, and Governance.
Through outreach, collaboration,With reliability being the primary role of a transmission and various community-oriented programs, distribution service provider in Texas' deregulated market, TNMP continues to focus on keeping end-users updated about interruptions and to encourage customer preparation when severe weather is forecasted. In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall in the gulf coast region and TNMP worked diligently to restore power safely and efficiently for affected customers. In addition, PNMR made donations to support relief and restoration efforts in the gulf coast region. TNMP employees who were impacted by Hurricane Harvey were provided emergency crisis funds supported by the PNM Resources Foundation and other employee donations.
Local relationships and one-on-one communications remain two of the most valuable ways both PNM and TNMP connect with their stakeholders. Both companies maintain long-standing relationships with governmental representatives and key customers to ensure that these stakeholders are updated on company investments and initiatives. Key stakeholders also have dedicated Company contacts that support their important service needs.

PNMR has a demonstrated commitmentlong tradition of supporting the communities it serves in New Mexico and Texas. The Company demonstrates its core value of caring through the PNM Resources Foundation, corporate giving, widespread employee volunteerism, and PNM’s low-income assistance programs. In addition to the extensive engagement both PNM and TNMP have with nonprofit organizations in their communities, the PNM Resources Foundation provides more than $1 million in grant funding each year across New Mexico and Texas. These grants help nonprofits collaborate more efficiently and support community projects such as providing software coding camps to underserved youths, funding murals in neighborhoods, and by providing employee matching and volunteer grants. In 2017, “A New Century of Service” grants, which celebrate PNM’s 100th anniversary, funded 62 community projects to build productive relationships with stakeholders, including customers, regulators, legislators,a better future for local communities. In December 2017, PNM announced an additional $1.0 million in donations to the PNM Resources Foundation to support future economic and intervenors.educational programs in New Mexico.

PNM continuesprovides funds to support nonprofits in New Mexico focused in the areas of economic development, education, and the environment. One of PNM’s most important outreach programs is tailored for low-income customers. In 2017, PNM hosted

A - 41



44 community events throughout its outreach effortsservice territory to connect low-income customers with nonprofit community service providers offering support and help with such needs as water and gas utility bills, food, clothing, medical programs, and services for seniors, and weatherization. In 2015, PNM hosted 38 community events throughoutseniors. Additionally, through its service territory to assist low-income customers. Furthermore, the PNM Good Neighbor Fund, PNM provided $0.4$0.5 million of assistance with utilityelectric bills to 3,5543,804 families in 2015. In 2015, PNM committed funding of $0.6 million2017 and offered financial literacy training to the PNM Good Neighbor Fund.
The PNM Resources Foundation helps nonprofits become more energy efficient through Reduce Your Use grants. In 2013, PNMR committed funding of $3.5 million to the PNM Resources Foundation. For 2015, the foundation awarded $0.3 million tofurther support 54 projects in New Mexico to provide shade structure installations, window replacements, and efficient appliance purchases. Since the program’s inception in 2008, Reduce Your Use grants have provided nonprofit agencies in New Mexico with a total of $1.9 million of support. In 2014, the PNM Resources Foundation launched a new grant program designed to help nonprofit organizations build more vibrant communities.  In 2014 and 2015, Power Up Grants in the aggregate amount of $0.5 million and $0.5 million were awarded to 24 and 34 nonprofits in New Mexico and Texas for projects ranging from creating community gathering spaces to revitalizing neighborhood parks to building a youth sports field.

A- 36



In Texas, community outreach is centered first on local relationships, specifically with community leaders, nonprofit organizations and key customers in areas served by TNMP. Community liaisons serve in each of TNMP’s three geographic business areas, reaching out and ensuring productive lines of communication between TNMP and its customer base.customers.

Volunteerism is an important facet of the PNMR culture. In 2017, more than 800 PNM and TNMP maintains long-standing relationships with several key nonprofit organizations, including agencies that support childrenemployees and families in crisis, food banks, environmental organizations, and educational nonprofits, through employee volunteerism and corporate support. TNMPretirees contributed approximately 10,800 volunteer hours serving their local communities. Company volunteers also actively participatesparticipate on nonprofit boards, in educational, economic, and environmental forums, as well as safety fairsseminars. PNMR employees are, in large part, responsible for the success of the Company’s customer, stakeholder, and demonstrations in addition to supporting local chambers of commerce in efforts to build their local economies.

TNMP’s energy efficiency program discussed above provides unique offers to multiple customer groups, including residential, commercial, government, education, and nonprofit customers. These programs not only enable peak load and consumption reductions, particularly important when extreme weather affects Texas’ electric system, but also demonstrate TNMP’s commitment to more than just delivering electricity by partnering with customers to optimize their energy usage.community outreach.

Economic Factors
    
PNM In 20152017 and 2014,2016, PNM experienced decreases in weather-normalized retail load of 1.4%0.9% and 1.7%. PNM has been impacted by0.7%, reflecting a continued sluggish economy in New Mexico. However, economic conditions in Albuquerque appear to have stabilized. The Albuquerque metro area is showing employment growth, but continues to be lower than the national average. Also, some of the previously announced successful economic development efforts, such as the selection of a site within PNM’s New Mexico service territory for a data center by Facebook, Inc., appear to have started their hiring process. There also have been some expansions of existing businesses, particularly the Albuquerque metropolitan area, which has lagged the nation in economic recovery.healthcare, education, and professional services. The economy in New Mexico continues to have mixed indicators. The employment growth recently in the Albuquerque metro area has been improving. New Mexico overall continues toindicators and experience softness that is driven primarily by low oilsoftness.

TNMP – In 2017 and natural gas prices. Although PNM does not serve the regions of the state that produce oil and gas, it is anticipated that the impacts of layoffs and the decrease in state royalty revenues will further soften the economies in PNM’s service territory to some degree, particularly in the Albuquerque metro area and Santa Fe, as the state deals with budget shortfalls.2016, TNMP experienced increases in volumetric weather normalized retail load of 2.6%1.2% and 3.2%3.0%. Most of TNMP’s industrial and larger commercial customers are billed based on their peak demand. Demand-based load, excluding retail transmission customers, increased 4.0% and 2.4% in 20152017 and 2014. Since2016. The Texas economy continues to grow, primarily due to its diverse base, which offsets some of the recent recession,impacts of Hurricane Harvey. Because TNMP’s service territory is geographically dispersed and was largely on the edges of the storm, a smaller percentage of customers were impacted by the hurricane as compared to some other utilities. The relocation of some national and global corporate headquarters to the Dallas-Fort Worth area has led to growth in commercial customers and also contributes to growth in residential and small business customers. TNMP continues to add new transmission customers in its West Texas has fared better than the national average in job growthservice territory where oil and unemployment although there has been some recent softening in job growth, particularly in the Houston area that appearsgas production continues to be related to lower oil prices.grow.

Results of Operations

A summary of netNet earnings attributable to PNMR is as follows:
 Year Ended December 31, Change
 2015 2014 2013 2015/2014 2014/2013
 (In millions, except per share amounts)
      
Net earnings$15.6
 $116.3
 $100.5
 $(100.7) $15.8
Average diluted common and common equivalent shares80.1
 80.3
 80.4
 (0.2) (0.1)
Net earnings per diluted share$0.20
 $1.45
 $1.25
 $(1.25) $0.20

The components ofwere $79.9 million, or $1.00 per diluted share in the changesyear ended December 31, 2017 compared to $116.8 million, or $1.46 per diluted share in 2016. Among other things, earnings in 2017 benefited from continuing operations attributable to PNMR by segment are:
 Change
 2015/2014 2014/2013
 (In millions)
PNM$(102.6) $(0.8)
TNMP4.2
 8.7
Corporate and Other(2.2) 7.8
  Net change$(100.7) $15.8
PNMR’s operational results were affected by the following:

The $165.7 million pre-tax write-off recorded for regulatory disallowances and restructuring costsadditional revenues due to agreements among the ownersrate increase approved in the NM 2015 Rate Case at PNM, higher revenues under FERC formula transmission rates and new transmission customers at PNM, rate increases and increased load at TNMP, lower plant maintenance costs at PNM, higher gains on available-for-sale securities, higher AFUDC due to higher levels of SJGS necessaryconstruction expenditures at PNM, and excess tax benefits related to bring SJGS into compliance with the CAA and PNM’s related regulatory proceedingsstock compensation recognized under a new accounting standard (Note 16)
Lower retail13). These increases were more than offset by decreased load at PNM, partially offset by higher retail loadmilder weather at TNMP
Rate increases for PNM and TNMP, additional information about these rate increases is provided in Note 17
Weather

A- 37



Reduced rent payments upon renewal of leases for PVNGS Unit 1
A refund of amounts previously paid under the FERC tariff for gas transportation agreementslower revenue from NEC at PNM, greater regulatory disallowances at PNM, increased depreciation and settlement of a complaint filed at FERC against SPS Note 16)
Net unrealized gains and losses on mark-to-market economic hedges for sales and fuel costs not recoverable under PNM’s FPPAC
Changes in other income (deductions), primarily related to gains and losses on available-for-sale securities, a third-party pre-treatment process for coal at SJGS, and equity AFUDC
Increased income tax expenseproperty taxes due to impairments of state tax credit, state net operating loss,increased plant in service at PNM and charitable contribution carryforwards,TNMP and higher depreciation rates approved in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case, and lower interest income on the Westmoreland Loan and from the IRS, as well as athe additional income taxes resulting from the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate change in New Mexico Note 11
Fluctuations in prices for sales of power from PVNGS Unit 3
Other(Note 11) and increased pre-tax earnings. Additional information on factors impacting results of operation for each segment areis discussed under Results of Operations belowbelow.

LiquidityCorporate and Other

The Corporate and Other segment includes PNMR holding company activities, primarily related to corporate level debt and the activities of PNMR Services Company. PNMR Services Company provides corporate services through shared services agreements to PNMR and all of PNMR’s business units, including PNM and TNMP. These services are charged and billed at cost on a monthly basis to the business units. The activities of PNMR Development, NM Capital, Resourcesand NMRD are also included in Corporate and Other.
PNMR has a $300.0 million revolving credit

A - 5



SOURCES OF POWER
PNM
Generation Capacity

As of January 1, 2018, the total net generation capacity of facilities owned or leased by PNM was 2,102 MW. PNM also obtains power under long-term PPAs for the power produced by Valencia, New Mexico Wind, Red Mesa Wind, the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility, and the NMRD-owned solar facility.

PNM’s capacity in electric generating facilities, which are owned, leased, or under PPAs, in commercial service as of January 1, 2018 is:
Generation
Capacity
TypeNameLocation(MW)
CoalSJGSWaterflow, New Mexico562
CoalFour CornersFruitland, New Mexico200
GasReeves StationAlbuquerque, New Mexico154
GasAfton (combined cycle)La Mesa, New Mexico230
GasLordsburgLordsburg, New Mexico80
GasLuna (combined cycle)Deming, New Mexico189
Gas/OilRio BravoAlbuquerque, New Mexico138
GasValenciaBelen, New Mexico158
GasLa LuzBelen, New Mexico40
NuclearPVNGSWintersburg, Arizona402
SolarPNM-owned solarFifteen sites in New Mexico107
SolarNMRD-owned solarLos Lunas, New Mexico10
WindNew Mexico WindHouse, New Mexico204
WindRed Mesa WindSeboyeta, New Mexico102
GeothermalLightning Dock GeothermalLordsburg, New Mexico4
2,580

Fossil‑Fueled Plants

SJGS is operated by PNM has a $400.0 million revolving credit facility, bothand, until December 2017, consisted of which have been extended to expire in October 2020. Both facilities provide capacities for short-term borrowing and letters of credit. In addition, PNM has a $50.0 million revolving credit facility, which expires in January 2018, with banks having a significant presence in New Mexico and TNMP has a $75.0 million revolving credit facility, which expires in September 2018. Total availability for PNMR on a consolidated basis was $598.2 million at February 19, 2016. The Company utilizes these credit facilities and cash flows from operations to provide funds for both construction and operational expenditures. PNMR also has intercompany loan agreements with each of its subsidiaries.
The Company projects that its total capital requirements, consisting of construction expenditures and dividends, will total $2,390.1 million for 2016-2020. The construction expenditures include estimated amounts related to the identified sources of replacement capacity under the revised plan for compliance describedfour units. As discussed in Note 16, environmental upgrades at SJGS Units 2 and 3 were retired in December 2017 and the ownership interests in SJGS Unit 4 were restructured as of December 31, 2017. The table below presents the rated capacities and ownership interests of each participant in each unit of SJGS before and after these events:
 Unit MW Capacity and Ownership Interests
 Prior to Restructuring After Restructuring
 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 1 Unit 4
Capacity (MW)340
 340
 497
 507
 340
 507
            
PNM (1)
50.000% 50.000% 50.000% 38.457% 50.000% 77.297%
Tucson50.000
 50.000
 
 
 50.000
 
SCPPA
 
 41.800
 
 
 
Tri-State
 
 8.200
 
 
 
MSR
 
 
 28.800
 
 
Anaheim
 
 
 10.040
 
 
Farmington
 
 
 8.475
 
 8.475
Los Alamos
 
 
 7.200
 
 7.200
UAMPS
 
 
 7.028
 
 7.028
Total100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

(1) After restructuring includes a 12.8% interest held as a merchant plant .

A - 6




Four Corners Units 4 and 5 are 13% owned by PNM. These units are jointly owned with APS, an APS affiliate, SRP, and Tucson and are operated by APS. PNM had no ownership interest in Four Corners Units 1, 2, or 3, which were shut down by APS on December 30, 2013. The Four Corners plant site is leased from the Navajo Nation and is also subject to an easement from the federal government. APS, on behalf of the Four Corners participants, negotiated amendments to an existing facility lease with the Navajo Nation, which extends the Four Corners leasehold interest from 2016 to 2041. The Navajo Nation approved these amendments in March 2011. The effectiveness of the amendments also required the approval of the DOI, as did a related federal rights-of-way grant, which was received in July 2015. An affiliate of APS acquired the 7% interest formerly owned by EPE on July 7, 2016. NTEC, an entity owned by the Navajo Nation, has the option to purchase the 7% interest. NTEC provided notice of its intent to exercise the option, but has not yet acquired the 7% interest. APS and NTEC are currently in discussions as to the future of the option transaction. See Note 16 for additional information about Four Corners.

PNM owns 100% of Reeves, Afton, Rio Bravo, Lordsburg, and La Luz and one-third of Luna. The remaining interests in Luna are owned equally by Tucson and Samchully Power & Utilities 1, LLC. PNM is entitled to the entire output of Valencia under a PPA. Reeves, Lordsburg, Rio Bravo, La Luz, and Valencia are used primarily for peaking power and transmission support. As discussed in Note 9, Valencia is a variable interest entity and is consolidated by PNM as required by GAAP.

Nuclear Plant

PNM is participating in the three units of PVNGS, also known as the Arizona Nuclear Power Project, with APS (the operating agent), SRP, EPE, SCE, SCPPA, and the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles. PNM is entitled to 10.2%, including portions that are leased to PNM, of the power and energy generated by PVNGS. See Note 7 for additional information concerning the PVNGS leases, including the renewal of the four PVNGS Unit 1 leases and one of the PVNGS Unit 2 leases and the purchase of the assets underlying the other three Unit 2 leases. Currently, PNM has ownership interests of 2.3% in Unit 1, 9.4% in Unit 2, and 10.2% in Unit 3 and has leasehold interests of 7.9% in Unit 1 and 0.8% in Unit 2. The lease payments for the leased portions of PVNGS are recovered through retail rates approved by the NMPRC. See Note 16 for information on other PVNGS matters, including the NMPRC’s approval for PNM to include PVNGS Unit 3 as a jurisdictional resource to serve New Mexico retail customers beginning in 2018 and Note 17 for information concerning the NMPRC’s treatment of the purchased assets and extended leases in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case.

Solar

PNM completed several utility-owned solar PV facilities between 2011 and 2015. In addition, PNM completed its solar-storage demonstration project, which has a generation capacity of 0.5 MW. At December 31, 2017, PNM owns a total of 107 MW of solar facilities. PNMR Development began construction of 30 MW of new solar capacity in 2017. In December 2017, interest in that 30 MW of solar capacity was transferred to NMRD, which is 50% owned by PNMR Development. As discussed in Note 17, PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan includes the addition of 50 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities to be constructed in 2018 and 2019. In January 2018, the United States imposed a 30% tariff on certain imported solar panels. PNM is currently unable to predict the impact, if any, of this tariff on these projects. The NMPRC has approved a voluntary tariff that allows PNM retail customers to buy renewable electricity for a small monthly premium. Power from 1.5 MW of PNM’s solar capacity is used to service load under the voluntary tariff.

Plant Operating Statistics

Equivalent availability of PNM’s major base-load generating stations was:
Plant Operator 2017 2016 2015
SJGS PNM 84.1% 76.5% 67.4%
Four Corners APS 50.6% 62.0% 77.8%
PVNGS APS 91.9% 91.4% 94.2%

Joint Projects

SJGS, PVNGS, Four Corners, and Luna are joint projects each owned or leased by several different entities. Some participants in the joint projects are investor-owned entities, while others are privately, municipally, or co-operatively owned. Furthermore, participants in SJGS have varying percentage interests in different generating units within the project. The primary operating or participation agreements for the joint projects expire in July 2022 for SJGS, July 2041 for Four Corners, December 2046 for Luna, and November 2047 for PVNGS. SJGS and Four Corners are coal-fired generating plants that obtain their coal

A - 7



requirements from mines near the plants. An agreement for coal supply for SJGS, which expires on June 30, 2022, became effective on January 31, 2016. At that same time, an agreement to restructure the ownership in SJGS became effective. The restructuring agreement provided for certain participants in SJGS to exit ownership at December 31, 2017, by which time SJGS Units 2 and 3 were required to be permanently shut down. See Note 16 for a discussion of the restructuring of SJGS ownership. In December 2013, a coal supply arrangement for Four Corners that runs through July 6, 2031 was executed. As described above, Four Corners is situated on land under a lease from the Navajo Nation. Portions of PNM’s interests in PVNGS Units 1 and 2 are held under leases. See Nuclear Plant above and Note 7 regarding PNM’s actions related to these leases.

It is possible that other participants in the joint projects have circumstances and objectives that have changed from those existing at the time of becoming participants. The status of these joint projects is further complicated by the uncertainty surrounding the form of potential legislation and/or regulation of GHG, other air emissions, and CCBs, as well as the impacts of the costs of compliance and operational viability of all or certain units within the joint projects. It is unclear how these factors will enter into discussion and negotiations concerning the status of the joint projects as the expiration of basic operational agreements approaches.

PNM’s 2017 IRP, which was filed on July 3, 2017, indicates that it would be cost beneficial to PNM’s customers for PNM to retire its SJGS capacity in 2022 and for PNM to exit its ownership interest in Four Corners in 2031. See additional discussion of PNM’s 2017 IRP and PNM’s regulatory recovery of certain investments in Four Corners under the NM 2016 Rate Case, in Note 17. PNM can provide no assurance that its participation in the joint projects will continue in the manner that currently exists.

PPAs

In addition to generating its own power, PNM purchases power under long-term PPAs. PNM also purchases power in the forward, day-ahead, and real-time markets.

In 2002, PNM entered into a 25-year agreement to purchase all of the power and RECs generated by New Mexico Wind. PNM began receiving power from the project in June 2003. FPL owns and operates New Mexico Wind, which currently consists of 136 wind-powered turbines having an aggregate capacity of 204 MW on a site in eastern New Mexico. PNM also has a 20-year agreement to purchase energy and RECs from the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility built near Lordsburg, New Mexico. The current capacity of the facility is 4 MW. PNM’s 2018 renewable plan filing, which was approved by the NMPRC on November 15, 2017, included requests to procure an additional 80 GWh in 2019 and 105 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of New Mexico Wind and an additional 55 GWh in 2019 and 77 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal. The PPAs now expire in 2044 for New Mexico Wind and 2042 for Lightning Dock Geothermal.

In June 2013, PNM entered into a 20-year PPA with Red Mesa Wind, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, to purchase all of the power and RECs produced by Red Mesa Wind beginning on January 1, 2015. Red Mesa Wind, LLC owns and operates the facility, which consists of 64 wind-powered turbines having an aggregate capacity of 102 MW on a site west of Albuquerque.

PNM and Tri-State have a hazard sharing agreement, which expires on May 31, 2022. Under this agreement, each party sells the other party 100 MW of capacity and energy from a designated generation resource on a unit contingent basis, subject to certain performance guarantees.  Both the purchases and sales are made at the same market index price.  This agreement serves to reduce the magnitude of each party’s single largest generating hazard and assists in enhancing the reliability and efficiency of their respective operations. See Note 17 for details related to purchases and sales. Since PNM purchases and sells approximately the same amount of energy under the hazard sharing agreement, it is not included as a capacity resource in the above table.

As discussed in Note 1, PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners created NMRD on September 22, 2017 to pursue the acquisition, development, and ownership of renewable energy generation projects primarily in the State of New Mexico. PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners each have a 50% ownership interest in NMRD, a limited liability company. In December 2017, PNMR Development made a contribution to NMRD of its interest in three 10 MW solar facilities and assigned its interests in several agreements related to those facilities to NMRD. AEP OnSite Partners made a cash contribution to NMRD equal to 50% of the value of the 30 MW solar capacity, which cash was then distributed from NMRD to PNMR Development.  Power from the 30 MWs of solar capacity will be sold to PNM under 25-year PPAs to supply renewable energy to a new data center being constructed in PNM’s service territory by Facebook, Inc. (Note 17). At January 1, 2018, the first 10 MW of solar capacity was in commercial operation and the remaining capacity is expected to begin commercial operation by mid-2018.

In late 2017, PNM entered into three separate 25-year PPAs to purchase renewable energy and RECs to be used by PNM to supply additional renewable power to Facebook, Inc. These PPAs are subject to NMPRC approval and PNM made a filing requesting approval on January 17, 2018 (Note 17). These PPAs include the purchase of the power and RECs from:

A - 8




Casa Mesa Wind, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC., which is expected to be located near House, New Mexico, have a total capacity of 50 MW, and be operational at December 31, 2018
A 166 MW portion of the La Joya Wind Project, owned by Avangrid Renewables, LLC, which is expected to be located near Estancia, New Mexico and be operational in November 2020
Route 66 Solar Energy Center, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC., which is expected to be located west of Albuquerque, New Mexico, have a total capacity of 50 MW, and be operational in December 2021

A summary of purchased power, excluding Valencia, is as follows:
 Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
Purchased under long-term PPAs     
MWh1,574,716
 1,211,852
 599,562
Cost per MWh$29.02
 $28.26
 $22.18
Other purchased power     
Total MWh445,464
 502,893
 729,895
Cost per MWh$31.74
 $27.78
 $28.94
TNMP
TNMP provides only transmission and distribution services and does not sell power.

FUEL AND WATER SUPPLY
PNM
The percentages (on the basis of KWh) of PNM’s generation of electricity, including Valencia, fueled by coal, nuclear fuel, and gas and oil, and the average costs to PNM of those fuels per MMBTU were as follows:
 Coal Nuclear Gas and Oil
 
Percent of
Generation
 
Average
Cost
 
Percent of
Generation
 
Average
Cost
 
Percent of
Generation
 
Average
Cost
201756.5% $2.16
 31.9% $0.64
 9.2% $3.02
201654.1% $2.34
 31.6% $0.71
 11.8% $2.80
201553.3% $2.88
 32.6% $0.70
 12.6% $2.91

In 2017, 2016, and 2015, 2.4%, 2.5%, and 1.5% of PNM’s generation was from utility-owned solar, which has no fuel cost. In December 2017, SJGS Units 2 and 3 were retired and PNM assumed a greater interest in SJGS Unit 4, which results in a lower percentage of PNM’s electric generation capacity being fueled by coal. The generation mix for 2018 is expected to be 44.3% coal, 29.4% nuclear, 23.8% gas and oil, and 2.5% utility-owned solar. Due to locally available natural gas and oil supplies, the utilization of locally available coal deposits, and the generally adequate supply of nuclear fuel, PNM believes that adequate sources of fuel are available for its generating stations into the foreseeable future. See Sources of Power – PNM – PPAs for information concerning the cost of purchased power. PNM recovers substantially all of it fuel and purchased power costs through the FPPAC.

Coal

A coal supply contract for SJGS, which expires on June 30, 2022, became effective on January 31, 2016. Substantially all of the benefits of lower coal pricing under the new contract are being passed through to PNM’s customers under the FPPAC. Coal supply has not been arranged for periods after the existing contract expires. PNM believes there is adequate availability of coal resources to continue to operate SJGS. In 2018 and before entering into a binding agreement for post-2022 coal supply for SJGS, PNM must file its position in a NMPRC case to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after mid-2022.


A - 9



In late December 2013, a fifteen-year coal supply contract for Four Corners, which began in July 2016, was executed. The average coal price per ton under the new contract was approximately 51% higher in the twelve months ended June 30, 2017 than in the twelve months ended June 30, 2016, excluding disputed amounts discussed in Note 16. The contract provides for pricing adjustments over its term based on economic indices.

See Note 16 for additional information about PNM’s coal supply. As discussed in Note 17, PNM’s 2017 IRP indicated retiring PNM’s remaining interest in SJGS in 2022 after the expiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements and exiting ownership in Four Corners after the end of its current coal supply agreement in 2031 would provide long-term cost savings to PNM’s customers.
Natural Gas
The natural gas used as fuel for the electric generating plants is procured on the open market and delivered by third party transportation providers. The supply of natural gas can be subject to disruptions due to extreme weather events and/or pipeline or facility outages. PNM has contracted for firm gas transmission capacity to minimize the potential for disruptions due to extreme weather events. Certain of PNM’s natural gas plants are generally used as peaking resources that are highly relied upon during periods of extreme weather, which also may be the times natural gas has the highest demand from other users. It is likely PNM’s reliance on its natural gas generating resources will increase with the December 2017 retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3, which will increase PNM’s exposure to fluctuations in natural gas prices although substantially all gas costs are recovered through the FPPAC.
Nuclear Fuel and Waste
PNM is one of several participants in PVNGS. The PVNGS participants are continually identifying their future nuclear fuel resource needs and negotiating arrangements to fill those needs. The PVNG participants have contracted for 100% of PVNGS’s requirements for uranium concentrates through 2023 and 50% of its requirements for 2024 and 2025. Additionally, PVNGS has contracts in various phases of negotiation to procure an additional 1.5 years supply of uranium concentrates, which would result in 100% of uranium concentrate requirements being assured through 2026. The PVNGS participants have also contracted for 100% of the requirements for conversion services through 2021 and 46% of its requirements for 2022 through 2025. Additional contracts are being negotiated for 4.3 years supply of conversion services, which would result in 100% of those services being assured through 2027. The PVNGS participants have also contracted for 100% of the requirements for enrichment services through 2020 and 20% of its enrichment services for 2021 through 2026. Additionally, PVNGS has several contracts in negotiation to procure an additional 4.3 years supply of enrichment services, which would result in 100% of those services being assured through 2021, 90% in 2022 and 80% in 2023 through 2026. All of PVNGS’s fuel assembly fabrication services are contracted through 2024.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required the DOE to begin to accept, transport, and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste generated by the nation’s nuclear power plants by 1998. The DOE’s obligations are reflected in a contract with each nuclear power plant. The DOE failed to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel by 1998. APS (on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS participants) pursued legal actions for which settlements were reached. See Note 16 for information concerning these actions.
The DOE had planned to meet its disposal obligations by designing, licensing, constructing, and operating a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In March 2010, the DOE filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice its Yucca Mountain construction authorization application that was pending before the NRC. Several interested parties have intervened in the NRC proceeding. Additionally, a number of interested parties have filed a variety of lawsuits in different jurisdictions around the country challenging the DOE’s authority to withdraw the Yucca Mountain construction authorization application. None of these lawsuits has been conclusively decided by the courts. However, in August 2013, the DC Circuit ordered the NRC to resume its review of the application with available appropriated funds.

On October 16, 2014, the NRC issued Volume 3 of the safety evaluation report developed as part of the Yucca Mountain construction authorization application. This volume addresses repository safety after permanent closure, and its issuance is a key milestone in the Yucca Mountain licensing process. Volume 3 contains the NRC staff’s finding that the DOE’s repository design meets the requirements that apply after the repository is permanently closed, including but not limited to the post-closure performance objectives in NRC’s regulations. On December 18, 2014, the NRC issued Volume 4 of the safety evaluation report developed as part of the Yucca Mountain construction authorization application. This volume covers administrative and programmatic requirements for the repository and documents the staff’s evaluation of whether the DOE’s research and development and performance confirmation programs, as well as other administrative controls and systems, meet applicable NRC requirements. Volume 4 contains the staff’s finding that most administrative and programmatic requirements in NRC regulations are met, except

A - 10



for certain requirements relating to ownership of land and water rights. Publication of Volumes 3 and 4 does not signal whether or when the NRC might authorize construction of the repository.
All spent nuclear fuel from PVNGS is being stored on-site. PVNGS has sufficient capacity at its on-site ISFSI to store all of the nuclear fuel that will be irradiated during the initial operating license periods, which end in November 2027. Additionally, PVNGS has sufficient capacity at its on-site ISFSI to store a portion of the fuel that will be irradiated during the extended license periods, which end in November 2047. If uncertainties regarding the United States government’s obligation to accept and store spent fuel are not favorably resolved, the PVNGS participants will evaluate alternative storage solutions. These may obviate the need to expand the ISFSI to accommodate all of the fuel that will be irradiated during the extended license periods.
Water Supply

See Note 16 for information about PNM’s water supply.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Electric utilities are subject to stringent laws and regulations for protection of the environment by local, state, federal, and tribal authorities. In addition, PVNGS is subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC, which has the authority to issue permits and licenses and to regulate nuclear facilities in order to protect the health and safety of the public from radioactive hazards and to conduct environmental reviews. The liabilities under these laws and regulations can be material. In some instances, liabilities may be imposed without regard to fault, or may be imposed for past acts, whether or not such acts were lawful at the time they occurred. The construction expenditure projection (Note 14) includes the environmental upgrades at Four Corners discussed in Note 16 of $7.9 million in 2018. See MD&A – Other Issues Facing the Company – Climate Change Issues for information on GHG. In addition, Note 16 contains information related to the following matters, incorporated in this item by reference:

PVNGS Decommissioning Funding
Nuclear Spent Fuel and Waste Disposal
Environmental Matters under the caption “The Clean Air Act”
WEG v. OSM NEPA Lawsuit
Navajo Nation Environmental Issues
Cooling Water Intake Structures
Effluent Limitation Guidelines
Santa Fe Generating Station
Environmental Matters under the caption “Coal Combustion Byproducts Waste Disposal”
Environmental Matters under the caption “Coal Supply”

COMPETITION

Regulated utilities are generally not subject to competition from other utilities in areas that are under the jurisdiction of state regulatory commissions. In New Mexico, PNM does not have direct competition for services provided to its retail electric customers. In Texas, TNMP is not currently in any direct retail competition with any other regulated electric utility. However, PNM and TNMP are subject to customer conservation and energy efficiency activities, as well as initiatives to utilize alternative energy sources, including self-generation, or otherwise bypass the PNM and TNMP systems.

PNM is subject to varying degrees of competition in certain territories adjacent to or within the areas it serves. This competition comes from other utilities in its region as well as rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities.  PNM is involved in the generation and sale of electricity into the wholesale market although PNM has decided to stop pursuing wholesale generation contracts.  PNM is subject to competition from regional utilities and merchant power suppliers with similar opportunities to generate and sell energy at market-based prices and larger trading entities that do not own or operate generating assets.


A - 11



EMPLOYEES
The following table sets forth the number of employees of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP as of December 31, 2017:
 PNMR PNM TNMP
Corporate (1)
396
 
 
PNM938
 938
 
TNMP365
 
 365
   Total1,699
 938
 365

(1)Represents employees of PNMR Services Company.
As of December 31, 2017, PNM had 495 employees in its power plant and operations areas that are currently covered by a collective bargaining agreement with the IBEW Local 611 that is in effect through April 30, 2020. As of December 31, 2017, TNMP had 198 employees represented by IBEW Local 66 covered by a collective bargaining agreement that is in effect through August 31, 2019. The wages and benefits for PNM and TNMP employees who are members of the IBEW are typically included in the rates charged to electric customers and consumers, subject to approval of the NMPRC and PUCT.

DISCLOSURE REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

Statements made in this filing that relate to future events or PNMR’s, PNM’s, or TNMP’s expectations, projections, estimates, intentions, goals, targets, and strategies are made pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Readers are cautioned that all forward-looking statements are based upon current expectations and estimates. PNMR, PNM, and TNMP assume no obligation to update this information.
Because actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements, PNMR, PNM, and TNMP caution readers not to place undue reliance on these statements. PNMR’s, PNM’s, and TNMP’s business, financial condition, cash flows, and operating results are influenced by many factors, which are often beyond their control, that can cause actual results to differ from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. These factors include:

The ability of PNM and TNMP to recover costs and earn allowed returns in regulated jurisdictions, including the impacts of the NMPRC orders in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and NM 2016 Rate Case, appeals of those orders, the deferral of the issue of PNM’s prudence of continuation of participation in Four Corners to PNM’s next rate case and recovery of PNM’s investments in that plant, and any actions resulting from PNM’s 2017 IRP and the impact on service levels for PNM customers if the ultimate outcomes do not provide for the recovery of costs of operating and capital expenditures, as well as other impacts of federal or state regulatory and judicial actions
The ability of the Company to successfully forecast and manage its operating and capital expenditures, including aligning expenditures with the revenue levels resulting from the ultimate outcomes in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and NM 2016 Rate Case, including appeals, and TNMP’s rate case anticipated to be filed in May 2018 and supporting forecasts utilized in future test year rate proceedings
The impacts on the electricity usage of customers and consumers due to performance of state, regional, and national economies, energy efficiency measures, weather, seasonality, alternative sources of power, and other changes in supply and demand
Uncertainty surrounding the status of PNM’s participation in jointly-owned generation projects, including the 2022 scheduled expiration of the operational and fuel supply agreements for SJGS, as well as the 2018 required NMPRC filing to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers beyond mid-2022 and any actions resulting from PNM’s 2017 IRP, including regulatory recovery of undepreciated investments in the event the NMPRC orders generating facilities to be retired before currently estimated
Uncertainty regarding the requirements and related costs of decommissioning power plants and reclamation of coal mines supplying certain power plants, as well as the ability to recover those costs from customers, including the potential impacts of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case and NM 2016 Rate Case, appeals of those orders, and PNM’s 2017 IRP
Uncertainty regarding what actions PNM may take with respect to the generating capacity in PVNGS Units 1 and 2, which is under lease, at the expiration of the lease terms in 2023 and 2024, as well as the related treatment of the NMPRC for ratemaking purposes
The Company’s ability to access the financial markets in order to provide financing to repay or refinance debt as it comes due, as well as for ongoing operations and construction expenditures, including disruptions in the capital or credit markets, actions by ratings agencies, and fluctuations in interest rates, including any negative impacts that could result from the ultimate outcome in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and NM 2016 Rate Case, including appeals

A - 12



The potential unavailability of cash from PNMR’s subsidiaries due to regulatory, statutory, or contractual restrictions or subsidiary earnings or cash flows
State and federal regulation or legislation relating to environmental matters, the resultant costs of compliance, and other impacts on the operations and economic viability of PNM’s generating plants
State and federal regulatory, legislative, executive, and judicial decisions and actions on ratemaking, tax, including the impacts and related uncertainties of tax reform enacted in 2017, and other matters
Risks related to climate change, including potential financial risks resulting from climate change litigation and legislative and regulatory efforts to limit GHG
Uncertainty surrounding counterparty credit risk, including financial support provided to facilitate the coal supply and ownership restructuring at SJGS
The performance of generating units, transmission systems, and distribution systems, which could be negatively affected by operational issues, fuel quality, unplanned outages, extreme weather conditions, terrorism, cybersecurity breaches, and other catastrophic events
Employee workforce factors, including cost control efforts and issues arising out of collective bargaining agreements and labor negotiations with union employees
Variability of prices and volatility and liquidity in the wholesale power and natural gas markets
Changes in price and availability of fuel and water supplies, including the ability of the mines supplying coal to PNM’s coal-fired generating units and the companies involved in supplying nuclear fuel to provide adequate quantities of fuel
The risks associated with completion of generation, transmission, distribution, and other projects
Regulatory, financial, and operational risks inherent in the operation of nuclear facilities, including spent fuel disposal uncertainties
The risk that FERC rulemakings or lack of additional capacity during peak hours may negatively impact the operation of PNM’s transmission system
The impacts of decreases in the values of marketable securities maintained in trusts to provide for decommissioning, reclamation, pension benefits, and other postretirement benefits, including potential increased volatility resulting from international developments
The effectiveness of risk management regarding commodity transactions and counterparty risk
The outcome of legal proceedings, including the extent of insurance coverage
Changes in applicable accounting principles or policies

For information about the risks associated with the use of derivative financial instruments see Part II, Item 7A. “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

SECURITIES ACT DISCLAIMER
Certain securities described in this report have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or any state securities laws and may not be reoffered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and applicable state securities laws. This Form 10-K does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities.

ITEM 1A.RISK FACTORS
The business and financial results of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond their control, including those set forth below and in MD&A, Note 16, and Note 17. For other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated in any forward-looking statement contained in this report, see Disclosure Regarding Forward Looking Statements in Item 1. Business. TNMP provides transmission and distribution services to REPs that provide electric service to consumers in TNMP’s service territories. References to customers in the risk factors discussed below also encompass the customers of these REPs who are the ultimate consumers of electricity transmitted and distributed through TNMP’s facilities.
Regulatory Factors
The profitability of PNMR’s utilities depends on being able to recover their costs through regulated rates and earn a fair return on invested capital, including investments in its generating plants. PNM and TNMP are in a period of significant capital expenditures, including costs of replacing generating capacity as coal-fired plants are retired. While increased capital investments and other costs are placing upward pressure on rates, energy efficiency initiatives and a sluggish New Mexico economy are reducing usage by customers.

A - 13



The rates PNM charges its customers are regulated by the NMPRC and FERC. TNMP is regulated by the PUCT. The Company is in a period requiring significant capital investment and is projecting total construction expenditures for the years 2018-2022 to be $2,712.1 million. See Note 14. PNM and TNMP anticipate a trend toward increasing costs, for which it will have to seek regulatory recovery. These costs include or are related to:

Costs of asset construction for generation, transmission, and distribution systems necessary to provide electric service, including new generation and transmission resources, as well as the cost to remove and retire existing assets
Environmental compliance expenditures
The regulatory mandate to acquire power from renewable resources
Increased regulation related to nuclear safety
Increased interest costs to finance capital investments
Depreciation
At the same time costs are increasing, there are factors placing downward pressures on the demand for power, thereby reducing load growth and customer usage. These factors include:

Changing customer behaviors, including increased emphasis on energy efficiency measures and utilization of alternative sources of power
Rate design that is not driven by economics, which could influence customer behavior
Unfavorable economic conditions
Reductions in costs of self-generation energy resources and energy efficiency technology
Reduced new sources of demand
Unpredictable weather patterns

In 2017 and 2016, PNM experienced decreases in weather-normalized retail sales of 0.9% and 0.7%. The sales decreases reflect a continued sluggish economy in New Mexico. However, economic conditions in Albuquerque appear to have stabilized. The Albuquerque metro area is showing employment growth, although it continues to be lower than the national average. The economy in New Mexico continues to have mixed indicators and experience softness.

The combination of costs increasing relatively rapidly and the slowing of customer usage places upward pressure on the per unit prices that must be charged to recover costs. This upward pressure on unit prices could result in additional efforts by customers to reduce consumption through energy efficiency or to pursue self-generation or other alternative sources of power. Without timely cost recovery and the authorization to earn a reasonable return on invested capital, the Company’s liquidity and results of operations could be negatively impacted.
Under New Mexico law, utilities may propose the use of a future test year (“FTY”) in establishing rates. As with any forward looking financial information, a FTY presents challenges that are inherent in the forecasting process. Forecasts of both operating and capital expenditures necessitate reliance on many assumptions concerning future conditions and operating results. Accordingly, if rate requests based on a FTY cannot be successfully supported, cash flows and results of operations may be negatively impacted. This could result from not being able to withstand challenges from regulators and intervenors regarding the utility’s capability to make reasonable forecasts.

As discussed in Note 17, PNM filed an application for a general rate increase in December 2014, which the NMPRC dismissed in May 2015, based on the Hearing Examiners recommendation, which cited procedural defects in the filing. In August 2015, PNM filed a new application (the “NM 2015 Rate Case”) with the NMPRC for a general rate increase, including base non-fuel revenues of $121.5 million. The primary drivers of PNM’s identified revenue deficiency were infrastructure investments and the recovery of those investment dollars, including depreciation based on an updated depreciation study, and declines in forecasted energy sales as a result of PNM’s successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors. The NMPRC issued an order authorizing an increase in non-fuel revenues of $61.2 million effective beginning in October 2016. The NMPRC disallowed recovery of PNM’s capital investment in BDT equipment installed on SJGS Units 1 and 4, which is required by the NSR permit for SJGS (Note 16), and a portion of the acquisition costs for PNM’s January 15, 2016 purchase of 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2, which were previously leased to PNM, as well as the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period that capacity was leased. PNM filed an appeal of these disallowances with the NM Supreme Court. Other parties to that rate case have filed cross-appeals to PNM’s appeal in order to appeal other decisions of the NMPRC regarding issues in the rate case. On October 30, 2017, the NM Supreme Court heard oral argument on the case, but has not yet rendered a decision on the appealed matters and there is no required time frame for a decision to be issued.

In December 2016, PNM filed a request (the “NM 2016 Rate Case”) for a general increase in rates of $99.2 million. The primary drivers of PNM’s identified revenue deficiency were implementation of the plan for SJGS to comply with the CAA,

A - 14



including the shutdown of Units 2 and 3 of SJGS, recovery of 50% of the net book value of those units, and the inclusion in retail rates of PVNGS Unit 3 as replacement power (Note 16). The requested increase also reflected new infrastructure investments, including the installation of SCRs at Four Corners, and declines in forecasted energy sales as a result of PNM’s successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors. PNM also proposed changes in rate design to better align electric rates with the actual costs to serve customers and encourage continued energy efficiency while proposing a rate mechanism that eliminates the disincentives associated with energy efficiency and load management programs. On May 23, 2017, PNM and several signatories filed a revised comprehensive stipulation, which reduced the non-fuel revenue increase to $62.3 million and provided that PNM would only earn a debt return on its investments in SCR technology at Four Corners. In January 2018, the NMPRC issued an order, which approved many aspects of the revised comprehensive stipulation with several modifications. These modifications include a requirement for PNM to reflect the impacts of recently enacted federal tax reform in rates beginning in 2018, a disallowance of PNM’s ability to collect an equity return on its $90.1 million investment in SCRs at Four Corners and on $58.0 million of projected additional capital improvements at Four Corners, and a requirement that PNM reduce the $62.3 million non-fuel revenue requested increase by $4.4 million. The NMPRC deferred further consideration regarding the prudency of PNM’s continuation of participation in Four Corners to PNM’s next rate case. On February 7, 2018, NEE filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court asking the court to review the NMPRC’s decisions in the NM 2016 Rate Case.

As discussed in Note 17, PNM filed its 2017 IRP on July 3, 2017. Key findings of the 2017 IRP include that retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 after the expiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements would provide long-term cost savings for PNM’s customers and that PNM exiting its ownership interest in Four Corners after its current coal supply agreement expires in 2031 would also provide long-term cost savings for customers. Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS capacity and exiting Four Corners would require NMPRC approval of abandonment filings, which PNM would make at appropriate times in the future. NMPRC approval of new generation resources through CCN filings would also be required. The NMPRC has issued regulatory orders requiring depreciation (and resultant regulatory recovery) of significant portions of these resources through estimated lives of 2053 for SJGS and 2041 for Four Corners. If the NMPRC approves the retirement of SJGS in 2022 and exiting Four Corners in 2031, PNM will have significant un-recovered investments in those plants. PNM would seek NMPRC approval to recover those investments from ratepayers. At December 31, 2017, the net book values of PNM’s investments in SJGS and Four Corners were $406.7 million and $165.3 million.

An adverse outcome in the NM 2015 Rate Case or the NM 2016 Rate Case, including the pending appeals of those orders before the NM Supreme Court, or the decision in PNM’s next rate case on the issue regarding the prudency of PNM’s continued participation in Four Corners could negatively impact PNM’s financial position, results of operation, and cash flows. Likewise, if the NMPRC does not authorize appropriate recovery of any remaining investments in SJGS and Four Corners at the time those resources cease to be used to provide service to New Mexico ratepayers, including required future investments, and does not authorize recovery of the costs of obtaining power to replace those resources, PNM’s financial position, results of operation, and cash flows could be negatively impacted.
PNM currently recovers the cost of fuel for its generation facilities through its FPPAC. A new coal supply contract for SJGS, which expires on June 30, 2022, became effective on January 31, 2016 and provides for lower coal pricing than under the prior contract. In December 2013, a new fifteen-year coal supply contract for Four Corners beginning in July 2016 was executed. The average coal price per MMBTU under the new contract for Four Corners was approximately 51% higher in the twelve months ended June 30, 2017 than in the twelve months ended June 30, 2016. The contracts provide for pricing adjustments over their terms based on economic indices. Although PNM believes substantially all costs under coal supply arrangements would continue to be recovered through the FPPAC, there can be no assurance that full recovery will be allowed.

PNM’s regulatory approvals from the NMPRC, which are necessary for PNM to comply with the regional haze requirements of the CAA pertaining to SJGS, have been appealed to the NM Supreme Court. Furthermore, the NMPRC approval requires PNM to make a filing in 2018 to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue to serve PNM’s retail customers after June 30, 2022, on which date the SJPPA and the current coal supply agreement will expire. PNMR has counterparty credit risk in connection with financial support provided to facilitate the coal supply arrangement for SJGS. Adverse developments from these factors could have a negative impact on the business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of PNM and PNMR.

SJGS, which currently comprises 26.7% of PNM’s owned and leased generation capacity and is its largest generation resource, is subject to the CAA. As discussed in Note 16, in December 2015, the NMPRC approved a plan enabling SJGS to comply with the CAA (the “BART Approval”). The plan required the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 by December 31, 2017 and the shutdown was completed by that date. NEE, an intervenor in the NMPRC proceeding regarding the approval of the plan, has appealed the BART Approval to the NM Supreme Court. NEE has also filed a complaint with the NMPRC against PNM regarding the financing provided by NM Capital, a subsidiary of PNMR, to facilitate the sale of SJCC, which is discussed below and described under Coal Supply in Note 16. The complaint alleges that PNM failed to comply with its discovery obligation in

A - 15



the SJGS abandonment case and requests the NMPRC to investigate whether the financing transactions could adversely affect PNM’s ability to provide electric service to its retail customers. The NMPRC has taken no action on this matter. If the NM Supreme Court were to negate the BART Approval, it is unclear what the impact would be since SJGS Units 2 and 3 have been retired and ownership of SJGS has been restructured.

The BART Approval also requires PNM to make a filing with the NMPRC no later than December 31, 2018, and before entering into an agreement for post-2022 coal supply for SJGS, setting forth its position in a case to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after mid-2022. The existing SJPPA among the SJGS participants, which governs the operations of SJGS, expires on July 1, 2022 and the new SJGS CSA for coal supply at SJGS described in Note 16 expires on June 30, 2022. PNM has the option to extend the SJGS CSA, subject to negotiation of the term of the extension and compensation to the miner. In order to extend, PNM must give written notice of that intent to the miner by July 1, 2018 and the parties must agree to the terms of the extension by January 1, 2019.

As discussed in Note 17, PNM’s 2017 IRP indicates that retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 after the expiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements and exiting ownership in Four Corners after the current coal supply agreement expires in 2031 would provide long-term cost savings for PNM’s customers. The 2017 IRP addresses a 20-year planning period, from 2017 through 2036, and includes an action plan describing PNM’s plan to implement the 2017 IRP in the four-year period following its filing.

The restructuring of SJGS ownership and obtaining the new coal supply for SJGS were integral components of the process to achieve compliance with the CAA at SJGS. The effectiveness of the new SJGS CSA was dependent on the closing of the purchase of the existing coal mine operation by a new mine operator. In support of the closing of the mine purchase, NM Capital provided a loan of $125.0 million to the purchaser, which has been organized to be a bankruptcy-remote entity. In addition, PNMR has an arrangement with a bank under which the bank has issued $30.3 million of letters of credit in favor of sureties in order for the sureties to post reclamation bonds that are required under the mine’s operating permit. See Note 6 and Note 16.

The inability to operate SJGS or Four Corners or their early retirement would require approval of the NMPRC and would require PNM to obtain power from other sources in order to serve the needs of its customers. There can be no assurance that the NMPRC would approve early retirement or that recovery of any undepreciated investments through rates charged to customers would be authorized. In addition, there can be no assurance that adequate sources of replacement power would be available, that adequate transmission capabilities would be available to bring that power into PNM’s service territory, or whether the cost of obtaining those resources would be economic. Any such events would negatively impact PNM’s financial position, results of operation, and cash flows unless the NMPRC authorized the collection from customers of any un-recovered costs related to SJGS and Four Corners, as well as costs of obtaining replacement power.

It is also possible that unsatisfactory outcomes of these matters, the financial impact of climate change regulation or legislation, other environmental regulations, the result of litigation, the adequacy and timeliness of cost recovery mechanisms, and other business considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of SJGS and/or Four Corners or the ability of individual participants to continue participation in them.

PNMR’s utilities are subject to numerous federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, including those related to climate change, which may impose significant compliance costs and may significantly limit or affect their operations and financial results.

Environmental policies and regulations remain significant concerns for PNMR. Compliance with federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, including those addressing climate change, air quality, CCBs, discharges of wastewater originating from fly ash and bottom ash handling facilities, cooling water, and other matters, may result in increased capital, operating, and other costs, particularly with regard to enforcement efforts focused on power plant emission obligations. These costs could include remediation, containment, civil liability, and monitoring expenses. The Company cannot predict how it would be affected if existing environmental laws and regulations were to be repealed, revised, or reinterpreted, or if new environmental statutes and rules were to be adopted. See Note 16 and the Climate Change Issues subsection of the Other Issues Facing the Company section of MD&A.

Under the Obama Administration, EPA’s Clean Power Plan mandated standards of performance that would limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Individual states would develop and implement plans to ensure compliance with the proposed standards. Currently, the Clean Power Plan is stayed and under review. The Trump Administration has also proposed to repeal the Clean Power Plan and is considering a possible replacement rule. In addition, on June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Therefore, PNMR is dealing with an uncertain regulatory and policy environment. While EPA and other federal agencies may be seeking to reduce climate change regulations,

A - 16



some state agencies, environmental advocacy groups, and other organizations have been focusing considerable attention on GHG from power generation facilities. PNM currently depends on fossil-fueled generation for a significant portion of its electricity. As discussed under Climate Change Issues, this type of generation could be subject to future EPA or state regulations requiring GHG reductions. This includes new, existing, and modified or reconstructed EGUs. The uncertainty regarding climate change regulation presents challenges and represents a possible shift of greater authority to the states to make decisions and issue and enforce regulations. Federal and/or state regulations could result in additional operating restrictions on facilities and increased generation and compliance costs.

CCBs from the operation of SJGS are currently being used in the reclamation of a surface coal mine. These CCBs consist of fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum. Any new regulation that would affect the reclamation process, including mine use of CCBs being classified as hazardous waste, could significantly increase the costs of the disposal of CCBs and the costs of mine reclamation. See Note 16.

A regulatory body may identify a site requiring environmental cleanup and designate PNM or TNMP as a responsible party. There is also uncertainty in quantifying exposure under environmental laws that impose joint and several liability on all potentially responsible parties. Failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations, even if such non-compliance is caused by factors beyond PNM’s or TNMP’s control, may result in the assessment of civil or criminal penalties and fines.

BART determinations have been made for both SJGS and Four Corners under the program to address regional haze in the “four corners” area, which would reduce the levels of NOx emitted at both plants. Significant capital expenditures have been made at SJGS and are continuing at Four Corners for the installation of control technology resulting in operating costs increases. PNMR and its operating subsidiaries may underestimate the costs of environmental compliance, liabilities, and litigation due to the uncertainty inherent in these matters. Although there is uncertainty about the timing and form of the implementation of EPA’s regulations regarding climate change, including the Clean Power Plan, how CCBs used for mine reclamation will be regulated, and regulation of other power plant emissions, including changes to the ambient air quality standards, such regulations could have a material impact on operations. The Company is unable to estimate these costs due to the many uncertainties associated with, among other things, the nature and extent of future regulations and changes in existing regulations, including the changes in regulatory policy under the Trump Administration. Timely regulatory recovery of costs associated with any environmental-related regulations would be needed to maintain a strong financial and operational profile. The above factors could adversely affect the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.

PNMR, PNM, and TNMP are subject to complex government regulation unrelated to the environment, which may have a negative impact on their businesses, financial position and results of operations.
To operate their businesses, PNMR, PNM, and TNMP are required to have numerous permits and approvals from a variety of regulatory agencies. Regulatory bodies with jurisdiction over the utilities include the NMPRC, NMED, PUCT, TCEQ, ERCOT, FERC, NRC, EPA, and NERC. Oversight by these agencies covers many aspects of the Company’s utility operations including, but not limited to: location, construction, and operation of facilities; the purchase of power under long-term contracts; conditions of service; the issuance of securities; and rates charged to customers. FERC has issued a number of rules pertaining to preventing undue discrimination in transmission services and electric reliability standards. The significant level of regulation imposes restrictions on the operations of the Company and causes the incurrence of substantial compliance costs. PNMR and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the impact on their business and operating results from future actions of any agency regulating the Company. Changes in existing regulations or the adoption of new ones could result in additional expenses and/or changes in business operations. Failure to comply with any applicable rules, regulations or decisions may lead to customer refunds, fines, penalties, and other payments, which could materially and adversely affect the results of operations and financial condition of PNMR and its subsidiaries. 
Operational Factors
Customer electricity usage could be reduced by increases in prices charged and other factors.  This could result in underutilization of PNM’s generating capacity, as well as underutilization of the capacities of PNM’s and TNMP’s transmission and distribution systems.  Should this occur, operating and capital costs might not be fully recovered, and financial performance could be negatively impacted.

A number of factors influence customers’ electricity usage.  These factors include, but are not limited to:

Rates charged by PNM and TNMP
Rates charged by REPs utilizing TNMP’s facilities to deliver power
Energy efficiency initiatives

A - 17



Availability and cost of alternative sources of power
National, regional, or local economic conditions

These factors and others may prompt customers to institute additional energy efficiency measures or take other actions that would result in lower power consumption. If customers bypass or underutilize PNM’s and TNMP’s facilities through self-generation, renewable, or other energy resources, technological change, or other measures, revenues would be negatively impacted.

PNM’s and TNMP’s service territories include several military bases and federally funded national laboratories, as well as large industrial customers that have significant direct and indirect impacts on the local economies where they operate.  The Company does not directly provide service to any of the military bases or national laboratories, but does provide service to large industrial customers. The Company’s business could be hurt from the impacts on the local economies associated with these customer groups, as well as directly from the large industrial customers, for a number of reasons, including:

Federally-mandated base closures or significant curtailment of the activities at the bases or national laboratories
Closure of industrial facilities or significant curtailment of their activities
Another factor that could negatively impact the Company is that proposals are periodically advanced in various localities to municipalize, or otherwise take over PNM’s facilities, which PNM believes would require state legislative action to implement, or to establish new municipal utilities in areas currently served by PNM.  If any such initiative is successful, the result could be a material reduction in the usage of the facilities, a reduction in rate base, and reduced earnings.

Should any of the above factors result in facilities being underutilized, the Company’s financial position, operational results, and cash flows could be significantly impacted.

Advances in technology could make electric generating facilities less competitive.

Research and development activities are ongoing for new technologies that produce power or reduce power consumption. These technologies include renewable energy, customer-oriented generation, energy storage, and energy efficiency. PNM generates power at central station power plants to achieve economies of scale and produce power at a cost that is competitive with rates established through the regulatory process. There are distributed generation technologies that produce power, including fuel cells, microturbines, wind turbines, and solar cells, which have become increasingly cost competitive. It is possible that advances in technology will continue to reduce the costs of these alternative methods of producing power to a level that is competitive with that of central station power production. Advances in the capabilities for energy storage could also have impacts on power production by PNM as it would be increasingly simple to reduce peak usage by dispatching battery systems. This could result in demand reduction that could negatively impact revenue and/or result in underutilized assets that had been built to serve peak usage. If these technologies become cost competitive and achieve economies of scale, PNM’s energy sales could be eroded, and the value of its generating facilities could be reduced. Advances in technology could also change the channels through which electric customers purchase or use power, which could reduce the Company’s sales and revenues or increase expenses. These advances can also create more uncertainty in load shapes and forecasts, which could have implications for generation and system planning.

Costs of decommissioning, remediation, and restoration of nuclear and fossil-fueled power plants, as well as reclamation of related coal mines, could exceed the estimates of PNMR and PNM as well as the amounts PNM recovers from its ratepayers, which could negatively impact results of operations and liquidity.

PNM has interests in a nuclear power plant, two coal-fired power plants, and several natural gas-fired power plants. PNM is obligated to pay for the costs of decommissioning its share of the power plants. PNM is also obligated to pay for its share of the costs of reclamation of the mines that supply coal to the coal-fired power plants. Likewise, other owners or participants are responsible for their shares of the decommissioning and reclamation obligations and it is important to PNM that those parties fulfill their obligations. Rates charged by PNM to its customers, as approved by the NMPRC, include a provision for recovery of certain costs of decommissioning, remediation, reclamation, and restoration. The NMPRC has established a cap on the amount of costs for the final reclamation of the surface coal mines that may be recovered from customers. PNM records estimated liabilities for its share of the legal obligations for decommissioning and reclamation in accordance with GAAP. These estimates include many assumptions about future events and are inherently imprecise. As discussed in Note 17, PNM’s 2017 IRP indicates that retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 and exiting PNM’s ownership interest in Four Corners in 2031 would provide long-term cost savings for customers. Should those events occur, the costs of reclamation for the coal mines serving those plants would increase and the increases could be significant. In the event any of these costs exceed current estimates, results of operations could be negatively impacted unless the NMPRC authorizes recovery of the additional costs from ratepayers. In addition, the NMPRC’s order in the NM 2015 Rate Case (Note 17) disallows recovery of future contributions for the decommissioning of certain portions of PVNGS. PNM has appealed the NMPRC decision in the NM 2015 Rate Case, oral argument has been held, and the appeal is

A - 18



pending before the NM Supreme Court. An adverse outcome of the appeal could negatively impact PNM’s future results of operations, cash flows, and liquidity.

The costs of decommissioning any nuclear power plant are substantial. PNM is responsible for all decommissioning obligations related to its entire interest in PVNGS, including portions under lease both during and after termination of the leases. PNM maintains trust funds designed to provide adequate financial resources for decommissioning PVNGS and for reclamation of the coal mines serving SJGS and Four Corners at the end of their expected lives. However, if the PVNGS units are decommissioned before their planned date or the coal mines are shut down sooner than expected, these funds may prove to be insufficient.

The financial performance of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP may be adversely affected if power plants and transmission and distribution systems do not operate reliably and efficiently.
The Company’s financial performance depends on the successful operation of PNM’s generation assets, as well as the transmission and distribution systems of PNM and TNMP. As indicated above, SJGS Units 2 and 3 were shut down in December 2017. Also, PNM’s 2017 IRP indicates that retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 and that PNM exiting its ownership interest in Four Corners in 2031 would also provide long-term cost savings for customers. These actions will increase PNM’s dependency on other generation resources, particularly PVNGS, and will reduce PNM’s flexibility in managing those resources. Unscheduled or longer than expected maintenance outages, breakdown or failure of equipment or processes due to aging infrastructure, temporary or permanent shutdowns to achieve environmental compliance, other performance problems with the electric generation assets, severe weather conditions, accidents and other catastrophic events, acts of war or terrorism, cybersecurity attacks, disruptions in the supply, quality, and delivery of fuel and water supplies, and other factors could result in PNM’s load requirements being larger than available system generation capacity. Assured supplies of water are important for PNM’s generating plants. Water in the southwestern United States is limited and there are conflicting claims regarding water rights. In addition, the “four corners” region where SJGS and Four Corners are located is prone to drought conditions, which could potentially affect the plants’ water supplies. Unplanned outages of generating units and extensions of scheduled outages occur from time to time and are an inherent risk of the Company’s business. If these were to occur, PNM would be required to purchase electricity in either the wholesale market or spot market at the then-current market price. There can be no assurance that sufficient electricity would be available at reasonable prices, or available at all. The failure of transmission or distribution facilities may also affect PNM’s and TNMP’s ability to deliver power. These potential generation, distribution, and transmission problems, and any service interruptions related to them, could result in lost revenues and additional costs.

PNMR, PNM, and TNMP are subject to information security breaches and risks of unauthorized access to their information and operational technology systems as well as physical threats to assets.
The Company faces the risk of physical and cybersecurity attacks, both threatened and actual, against generation facilities, transmission and distribution infrastructure used to transport power, information technology systems, and network infrastructure, which could negatively impact the ability of the Company to generate, transport, and deliver power, or otherwise operate facilities in the most efficient manner or at all.

The utility industry in which the Company operates is a highly regulated industry that requires the continued operation of sophisticated information technology systems and network infrastructure, some of which are deemed to be critical infrastructure under NERC guidelines. Certain of the Company’s systems are interconnected with external networks. In the regular course of business, the utilities handle a range of sensitive security and customer information. PNM and TNMP are subject to the rules of various agencies concerning safeguarding and maintaining the confidentiality of this information. Despite steps the Company may take to detect, mitigate and/or eliminate cybersecurity threats and respond to data security incidents, the techniques used by those who wish to obtain unauthorized access, and possibly disable or sabotage systems and/or abscond with confidential information and data, change frequently and the Company may not be able to protect against such actions.

In the event a party desires to disrupt the bulk power or transmission systems in the United States, the Company’s computer and operating systems could be subject to physical or cybersecurity attack.  Although the Company has implemented security measures, critical infrastructure, including information and operational technology systems, are vulnerable to disability, failures, or unauthorized access, which could occur as a result of malicious compromise, employee error, and/or employee misconduct.  A successful physical or cybersecurity attack or other similar failure of the systems could impact the reliability of PNM’s generation and PNM’s and TNMP’s transmission and distribution systems, including the possible unauthorized shutdown of facilities. Such an event could lead to significant disruptions of business operations, including the Company’s ability to generate, transport, and deliver power to serve customers, to bill customers, and to process other financial information. Moreover, a breach of the Company’s information technology systems could also lead to the loss and destruction of confidential and proprietary data, customer and employee data (which may include personally identifiable information such as names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses

A - 19



and payment account information), trade secrets, intellectual property and supplier data, and could disrupt business operations which could harm the Company’s reputation and financial results, as well as potential increased regulatory oversight, litigation, fines, and other remedial action. The costs incurred to investigate and remediate a physical or cybersecurity attack could be significant. A physical or cybersecurity attack on the Company’s critical infrastructure could have a material adverse impact on the operations and financial condition of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP.
There are inherent risks in the ownership and operation of nuclear facilities.
PNM has a 10.2% undivided interest in PVNGS, including interests in Units 1 and 2 held under leases. PVNGS represents 19.1% of PNM’s total owned and leased generating capacity. PVNGS is subject to environmental, health, and financial risks, including, but not limited to:
The ability to obtain adequate supplies of nuclear fuel and water
The ability to dispose of spent nuclear fuel
Decommissioning of the plant (see above)
Securing the facilities against possible terrorist attacks
Unscheduled outages due to equipment failures
The NRC has broad authority under federal law to impose licensing and safety-related requirements for the operation of nuclear generation facilities. Events at nuclear facilities of other operators or which impact the industry generally may lead the NRC to impose additional requirements and regulations on all nuclear generation facilities, including PVNGS. A major incident at a nuclear facility anywhere in the world could cause the NRC to limit or prohibit the operation or licensing of any domestic nuclear unit and to promulgate new regulations that could require significant capital expenditures and/or increase operating costs.
In the event of noncompliance with its requirements, the NRC has the authority to impose a progressively increasing inspection regime that could ultimately result in the shutdown of a unit, civil penalties, or both, depending upon the NRC’s assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. Increased costs resulting from penalties, a heightened level of scrutiny, and/or implementation of plans to achieve compliance with NRC requirements could adversely affect the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of PNMR and PNM. Although PNM has no reason to anticipate a serious nuclear incident at PVNGS, if an incident did occur, it could materially and adversely affect PNM’s results of operations and financial condition. 
PNM has external insurance coverage to minimize its financial exposure to some risks. However, it is possible that liabilities associated with nuclear operations could exceed the amount of insurance coverage. See Note 16.
Demand for power could exceed supply capacity, resulting in increased costs for purchasing capacity in the open market or building additional generation facilities.

PNM is obligated to supply power to retail customers and certain wholesale customers. At peak times, power demand could exceed PNM’s available generation capacity, particularly if PNM’s power plants are not performing as anticipated. In addition, SJGS units 2 and 3 were shut down in December 2017 and PNM’s 2017 IRP indicates that it would save customers money for PNM to shut down the remaining two units of SJGS in 2022 and to exit ownership in Four Corners in 2031. SJGS and Four Corners comprise a significant portion of PNM’s base load generation capacity and their retirement would increase reliance on other existing or new generating resources. Market forces, competitive forces, or adverse regulatory actions may require PNM to purchase capacity on the open market or build additional generation capabilities. Regulators or market conditions may not permit PNM to pass all of these purchases or construction costs on to customers. If that occurs, PNM may not be able to fully recover these costs or there may be a lag between when costs are incurred and when regulators permit recovery in customers’ rates. These situations could have negative impacts on results of operations and cash flows.

General Economic and Weather Factors
General economic conditions of the nation and/or specific areas can affect the Company’s customers and suppliers. Economic recession or downturn may result in decreased consumption by customers and increased bad debt expense, and could also negatively impact suppliers, all of which could negatively impact the Company.
Economic activity in the service territories of PNMR subsidiaries is a key factor in their performance. Decreased economic activity can lead to declines in energy consumption, which could adversely affect future revenues, earnings, and growth.  Higher unemployment rates, both in the Company’s service territories and nationwide, could result in commercial customers ceasing operations and lower levels of income for residential customers. These customers might then be unable to pay their bills on time,

A - 20



which could increase bad debt expense and negatively impact results of operations and cash flows. Economic conditions also impact the supply and/or cost of commodities and materials needed to construct or acquire utility assets or make necessary repairs.
Uncertainties regarding the impacts and implementation of recent United States tax reform legislation may negatively impact PNMR’s, PNM’s, and TNMP’s businesses, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

On December 22, 2017, comprehensive changes in United States federal income taxes were enacted through legislation commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”). Among other things, the Tax Act reduces the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% effective January 1, 2018, eliminates federal bonus depreciation for utilities effective September 28, 2017, and, effective January 1, 2018, limits interest deductibility for non-utility businesses and limits the deductibility of certain officer compensation. In December 2017, the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118, which provides guidance to address the application of GAAP to reflect the Tax Act in circumstances where all information and analysis of the Tax Act is not yet available or complete. This bulletin provides for up to a one-year period in which to complete the required analyses and accounting for the impacts of the Tax Act.

In accordance with GAAP, the Company adjusted its deferred tax assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2017 resulting in increases in regulatory liabilities related to adjustments of net deferred tax liabilities associated with regulated activities, which will be returned to PNM’s and TNMP’s ratepayers over time, and increases in income tax expense related to adjustments of net deferred tax assets related to items excluded from regulated activities. The Company believes it has made reasonable estimates of the effects of the Tax Act as of December 31, 2017 and reflected the impacts in the Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company currently believes that the impacts of the Tax Act will not significantly impact the future earnings of regulated activities due to the ratemaking process. However, cash flows will be reduced in the near term due to less cash being received from customer billings as the benefits of the reduced corporate income tax are passed on to ratepayers, but without a corresponding reduction in income taxes paid due to the Company having a net operating loss carryforward for income taxes purposes. In addition, the income tax benefit of net losses for the unregulated activities of PNMR, primarily interest expense on holding company debt, will be negatively impacted by the reduced rate. Furthermore, there is uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the provision of the Tax Act that limits the deductibility of interest for non-utility businesses under the interest expense allocation methodology that is generally used by the utility industry.

It is possible that changes to U.S. Treasury regulations, IRS interpretations of the provisions of the Tax Act, actions by the NMPRC, PUCT, and FERC, or the Company’s further analysis of historical records could cause the estimates of the impacts recorded as of December 31, 2017 to change or cause the Company’s current assessment of future impacts to change. Any such change could adversely affect the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

The operating results of PNMR and its operating subsidiaries fluctuate on a seasonal and quarterly basis, as well as being affected by weather conditions, including regional drought.
Electric generation, transmission, and distribution are generally seasonal businesses that vary with the demand for power. With power consumption typically peaking during the hot summer months, revenues traditionally peak during that period. As a result, quarterly operating results of PNMR and its operating subsidiaries vary throughout the year. In addition, PNMR and its operating subsidiaries have historically had lower revenues resulting in lower earnings when weather conditions are milder. Unusually mild weather in the future could reduce the revenues, net earnings, and cash flows of the Company.
Drought conditions in New Mexico, especially in the “four corners” region, where SJGS and Four Corners are located, may affect the water supply for PNM’s generating plants.  If inadequate precipitation occurs in the watershed that supplies that region, PNM may have to decrease generation at these plants. This would require PNM to purchase power to serve customers and/or reduce the ability to sell excess power on the wholesale market and reduce revenues. Drought conditions or actions taken by the court system, regulators, or legislators could limit PNM’s supply of water, which would adversely impact PNM’s business. Although SJGS and Four Corners participate in voluntary shortage sharing agreements with tribes and other water users in the “four corners” region, PNM cannot be certain these contracts will be enforceable in the event of a major drought or that it will be able to renew these contracts in the future.
TNMP’s service areas are exposed to extreme weather, including high winds, drought, flooding, ice storms, and periodic hurricanes. Extreme weather conditions, particularly high winds and severe thunderstorms, also occur periodically in PNM’s service areas. These severe weather events can physically damage facilities owned by TNMP and PNM. Any such occurrence both disrupts the ability to deliver energy and increases costs. Extreme weather can also reduce customers’ usage and demand for energy. These factors could negatively impact results of operations and cash flows.

A - 21



Financial Factors
PNMR may be unable to meet its ongoing and future financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock if its subsidiaries are unable to pay dividends or distributions to PNMR.
PNMR is a holding company and has no operations of its own. PNMR’s ability to meet its financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock primarily depends on the net income and cash flows of PNM and TNMP and their capacity to pay upstream dividends or distributions. Prior to providing funds to PNMR, PNM and TNMP have financial and regulatory obligations that must be satisfied, including among others, debt service and, in the case of PNM, preferred stock dividends.
The NMPRC has placed certain restrictions on the ability of PNM to pay dividends to PNMR, including that PNM cannot pay dividends that cause its debt rating to fall below investment grade. The NMPRC has also restricted PNM from paying dividends in any year, as determined on a rolling four-quarter basis, in excess of net earnings without prior NMPRC approval. PNM is permitted to pay dividends to PNMR from prior equity contributions made by PNMR. Additionally, the Company’s financing agreements generally include a covenant to maintain a debt-to-capital ratio that does not exceed 65%, PNM has various financial covenants that limit the transfer of assets, through dividends or other means and the Federal Power Act imposes certain restrictions on dividends paid by public utilities, including that dividends cannot be paid from paid-in capital.
Further, the ability of PNMR to declare dividends depends upon:

The extent to which cash flows will support dividends
The Company’s financial circumstances and performance
Decisions of the NMPRC and PUCT in various regulatory cases currently pending or that may be docketed in the future, including the outcome of appeals of those decisions
Conditions imposed by the NMPRC, PUCT, or Federal Power Act
The effect of federal regulatory decisions and legislative acts
Economic conditions in the United States and in the Company’s service areas
Future growth plans and the related capital requirements
Other business considerations

Disruption in the credit and capital markets may impact the Company’s strategy and ability to raise capital.
As discussed in MD&A – Liquidity and Capital Resources, PNMR and its subsidiaries rely on access to both short-term and longer-term capital markets as sources of liquidity for any capital requirements not satisfied by cash flow from operations. In general, the Company relies on its short-term credit facilities as the initial source to finance construction expenditures. This results in increased borrowings under the facilities over time. The Company is currently projecting total construction expenditures for the years 2018-2022 to be $2,712.1 million. If PNMR or its operating subsidiaries are not able to access capital at competitive rates, or at all, PNMR’s ability to finance capital requirements and implement its strategy will be limited. Disruptions in the credit markets, which could negatively impact the Company’s access to capital, could be caused by:
An economic recession
Declines in the health of the banking sector generally, or the failure of specific banks who are parties to the Company’s credit facilities
Deterioration in the overall health of the utility industry
The bankruptcy of an unrelated energy company
War, terrorist attacks, or cybersecurity attacks, or threatened attacks
If the Company’s cash flow and credit and capital resources are insufficient to fund capital expenditure plans, the Company may be forced to delay important capital investments, sell assets, seek additional equity or debt capital, or restructure debt. In addition, insufficient cash flows and capital resources may result in reductions of credit ratings. This could negatively impact the Company’s ability to incur additional indebtedness on acceptable terms and would result in an increase in the interest rates applicable under the Company’s credit facilities. The Company’s cash flow and capital resources may be insufficient to pay interest and principal on debt in the future. If that should occur, the Company’s capital raising or debt restructuring measures may be unsuccessful or inadequate to meet scheduled debt service obligations. This could cause the Company to default on its obligations and further impair liquidity.
Reduction in credit ratings or changing rating agency requirements could materially and adversely affect the Company’s growth, strategy, business, financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.

A - 22



PNMR, PNM, and TNMP cannot be sure that any of their current credit ratings will remain in effect for any given period of time or that a rating will not be put under review for a downgrade, lowered, or withdrawn entirely by a rating agency. On January 16, 2018, S&P changed the outlook for PNMR, PNM and TNMP from stable to negative while affirming the investment grade ratings of each entity. Downgrades or changing requirements could result in increased borrowing costs due to higher interest rates on current borrowings or future financings, a smaller potential pool of investors, and decreased funding sources. Such conditions also could require the provision of additional support in the form of letters of credit and cash or other collateral to various counterparties.

Declines in values of marketable securities held in trust funds for pension and other postretirement benefits and in the NDT and mine reclamation trusts could result in sustained increases in costs and funding requirements for those obligations, which may affect operational results.

Through 2017, the Company targeted 21% of its pension trust funds and 70% of its trust funds for other postretirement benefits to be invested in marketable equity securities. Historically, over one-half of funds held in the NDT and mine reclamation trusts have been invested in marketable equity securities. Due to the current funded status of the NDT and recent overall market performance, PNM began re-balancing the NDT investment portfolio with a target of 85% fixed income (debt) securities. The re-balancing was completed in January 2018 and increases the exposure of the NDT investment portfolio to interest rate risk. The Company is also contemplating decreasing its allocation target beginning in 2018 for liability matching fixed-income securities in the pension trusts from 65% to 50%. Declines in market values could result in increased funding of the trusts, the recognition of losses as impairments for the NDT and mine reclamation trusts, and additional expense for the benefit plans. In addition, a change in GAAP requires that all changes in the fair value of equity securities recorded on the Company’s balance sheet be reflected in earnings beginning in 2018, which could result in increased volatility in earnings.

Impairments of goodwill and long-lived assets of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP could adversely affect the Company’s business, financial position, liquidity, and results of operations.
The Company annually evaluates recorded goodwill for impairment. See Note 18 and the Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates section of MD&A. Long-lived assets are also assessed whenever indicators of impairment exist. Factors that affect the long-term value of these assets, including treatment by regulators in ratemaking proceedings, as well as other economic and market conditions, could result in impairments. Significant impairments could adversely affect the Company’s business, financial position, liquidity, and results of operations.

PNM’s PVNGS leases describe certain events, including “Events of Loss” and “Deemed Loss Events”, the occurrence of which could require PNM to take ownership of the underlying assets and pay the lessors for the assets.
The “Events of Loss” generally relate to casualties, accidents, and other events at PVNGS, including the occurrence of specified nuclear events, which would severely adversely affect the ability of the operating agent, APS, to operate, and the ability of PNM to earn a return on its interests in PVNGS.  The “Deemed Loss Events” consist primarily of legal and regulatory changes (such as issuance by the NRC of specified violation orders, changes in law making the sale and leaseback transactions illegal, or changes in law making the lessors liable for nuclear decommissioning obligations). PNM believes that the probability of such “Events of Loss” or “Deemed Loss Events” occurring is remote for the following reasons: (1) to a large extent, prevention of “Events of Loss” and some “Deemed Loss Events” is within the control of the PVNGS Unitparticipants through the general PVNGS operational and safety oversight process; and (2) other “Deemed Loss Events” would involve a significant change in current law and policy. PNM is unaware of any proposals pending or being considered for introduction in Congress, or in any state legislative or regulatory body that, if adopted, would cause any of those events. See Note 7.
Governance Factors
Provisions of PNMR’s organizational documents, as well as several other statutory and regulatory factors, will limit another party’s ability to acquire PNMR and could deprive PNMR’s shareholders of the opportunity to receive a takeover premium for shares of PNMR’s common stock.
PNMR’s restated articles of incorporation and by-laws include a number of provisions that may have the effect of discouraging persons from acquiring large blocks of PNMR’s common stock, or delaying or preventing a change in control of PNMR. The material provisions that may have such an effect include:
Authorization for the Board to issue PNMR’s preferred stock in series and to fix rights and preferences of the series (including, among other things, voting rights and preferences with respect to dividends and other matters)
Advance notice procedures with respect to any proposal other than those adopted or recommended by the Board

A - 23



Provisions specifying that only a majority of the Board, the chairman of the Board, the chief executive officer, or holders of at least one-tenth of all of PNMR’s shares entitled to vote may call a special meeting of stockholders
Under the New Mexico Public Utility Act, NMPRC approval is required for certain transactions that may result in PNMR’s change in control or exercise of control, including ownership of 10% or more of PNMR’s voting stock. PUCT approval is required for changes to the ownership of TNMP or its parent and certain other transactions relating to TNMP. Certain acquisitions of PNMR’s outstanding voting securities also require FERC approval.

ITEM 1B.UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.

ITEM 2.PROPERTIES
PNMR
The significant properties owned by PNMR include those owned by PNM and TNMP and are disclosed below.
PNM
See Sources of Power in Part I, Item. 1 Business above for information on PNM’s owned and leased capacity in electric generating stations. As of December 31, 2017, PNM owned, or jointly owned, 3,200 miles of electric transmission lines, 6,063 miles of distribution overhead lines, 5,828 miles of underground distribution lines (excluding street lighting), and 254 substations. PNM’s electric transmission and distribution lines are generally located within easements and rights-of-way on public, private, and Native American lands. PNM owns and leases interests in PVNGS Units 1 and 2 and related property, data processing, communication, office and other equipment, office space, vehicles, and real estate. PNM also owns and leases service and office facilities in Albuquerque and in other areas throughout its service territory. See Note 7 for additional information concerning leases, including PNM’s renewal of certain of the PVNGS leases and exercise of its option to purchase the assets underlying certain other leases at the expiration of those leases. In addition to internal cash generation, the Company anticipates that it will be necessary to obtain additional long-term financing in the form of debt refinancing, new debt issuances, and/or new equity in order to fund its capital requirements during the 2016-2020 period. The Company currently believes that its internal cash generation, existing credit arrangements, and access to public and private capital markets will provide sufficient resources to meet the Company’s capital requirements.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Segment Information
The following discussion is based on the segment methodology that PNMR’s management uses for making operating decisions and assessing performance of its various business activities.original lease terms. See Note 29 for moreadditional information on PNMR’s operating segments.about Valencia.
TNMP
TNMP’s facilities consist primarily of transmission and distribution facilities located in its service areas. TNMP also owns and leases vehicles, service facilities, and office locations throughout its service territory. As of December 31, 2017, TNMP owned 978 miles of overhead electric transmission lines, 7,119 miles of overhead distribution lines, 1,241 miles of underground distribution lines, and 116 substations. Substantially all of TNMP’s property is pledged to secure its first mortgage bonds. See Note 6.


A - 24



ITEM 3.LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

See Note 16 and Note 17 for information related to the following matters for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP, incorporated in this item by reference.

Note 16

The followingClean Air Act – Regional Haze – SJGS
The Clean Air Act – Regional Haze – Four Corners – Four Corners Federal Agency Lawsuit
WEG v. OSM NEPA Lawsuit
Navajo Nation Environmental Issues
Santa Fe Generating Station
Coal Supply – Four Corners – Four Corners Coal Supply Arbitration
Continuous Highwall Mining Royalty Rate
PVNGS Water Supply Litigation
San Juan River Adjudication
Rights-of-Way Matter
Navajo Nation Allottee Matters
Sales Tax Audits

Note 17

PNM – New Mexico General Rate Cases
PNM – Renewable Portfolio Standard
PNM – Renewable Energy Rider
PNM – Energy Efficiency and Load Management
PNM – Integrated Resource Plans
PNM – San Juan Generating Station Units 2 and 3 Retirement
PNM – Advanced Metering Infrastructure Application
TNMP – Transmission Cost of Service Rates
TNMP – Order Related to Changes in Federal Income Tax Rates

ITEM 4.MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not Applicable.

SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM – EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
All officers are elected annually by the Board of PNMR. Executive officers, their ages as of February 23, 2018 and offices held with PNMR for the past five years are as follows:
NameAgeOfficeInitial Effective Date
P. K. Collawn59Chairman, President, and Chief Executive OfficerJanuary 2012
C. N. Eldred64Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerJuly 2007
P. V. Apodaca66Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and SecretaryJanuary 2010
R. N. Darnell60Senior Vice President, Public PolicyJanuary 2012
J. D. Tarry47Vice President, Finance and ControllerFebruary 2017
Vice President, Corporate Controller, and Chief Information OfficerApril 2015
Vice President, Customer Service and Chief Information OfficerMay 2012
C. M. Olson60Senior Vice President, Utility OperationsFebruary 2018
Vice President, Utility OperationsDecember 2016
Vice President, Generation – PNMNovember 2012



A - 25



PART II
ITEM 5.MARKET FOR PNMR’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS, AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

PNMR’s common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (Symbol: PNM). Ranges of sales prices of PNMR’s common stock, reported as composite transactions, and dividends declared on the common stock for 2017 and 2016, by quarter, are as follows:
Quarter Ended
Range of
Sales Prices
 Dividends Declared Per Share
 High Low 
2017     
March 31$37.60
 $33.45
 $0.2425
June 3040.00
 36.30
 0.2425
September 3042.95
 37.35
 0.2425
December 3145.50
 40.20
 0.2650
Fiscal Year45.50
 33.45
 0.9925
2016     
March 31$34.07
 $29.22
 $0.2200
June 3035.46
 30.62
 0.2200
September 3036.15
 31.20
 0.2200
December 3134.53
 30.95
 0.2425
Fiscal Year36.15
 29.22
 0.9025

Dividends on PNMR’s common stock are declared by its Board. The timing of the declaration of dividends is dependent on the timing of meetings and other actions of the Board. This has historically resulted in dividends considered to be attributable to the second quarter of each year being declared through actions of the Board during the third quarter of the year. The Board declared dividends on common stock considered to be for the second quarter of $0.22 per share in July 2016 and $0.2425 per share in July 2017, which are reflected as being in the second quarter above. The Board declared dividends on common stock considered to be for the third quarter of $0.22 per share in September 2016 and $0.2425 per share in September 2017, which are reflected as being in the third quarter above. On February 23, 2018, the Board declared a quarterly dividend of $0.2650 per share. PNMR targets a long-term dividend payout ratio of 50% to 60% of ongoing earnings, which is a non-GAAP financial measure that excludes from earnings determined in accordance with GAAP certain non-recurring, infrequent, and other items that are not indicative of fundamental changes in the earnings capacity of the Company’s operations. PNMR uses ongoing earnings to evaluate the operations of the Company and to establish goals, including those used for certain aspects of incentive compensation, for management and employees.
On February 20, 2018, there were 8,946 holders of record of PNMR’s common stock. All of the outstanding common stock of PNM and TNMP is held by PNMR.
See Note 5 for a discussion on limitations on the payments of dividends and analysisthe payment of future dividends, as well as dividends paid by PNM and TNMP.
See Part III, Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
Preferred Stock
PNM is not aware of any active trading market for its cumulative preferred stock. Quarterly cash dividends were paid on PNM’s outstanding cumulative preferred stock at the stated rates during 2017 and 2016. PNMR and TNMP do not have any preferred stock outstanding.
Sales of Unregistered Securities
None.


A - 26



ITEM 6.SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The selected financial data and comparative operating statistics for PNMR should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto. Trendsthereto and contingenciesMD&A.
PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands except per share amounts and ratios)
Total Operating Revenues$1,445,003
 $1,362,951
 $1,439,082
 $1,435,853
 $1,387,923
Net Earnings$95,419
 $131,896
 $31,078
 $130,909
 $115,556
Net Earnings Attributable to PNMR$79,874
 $116,849
 $15,640
 $116,254
 $100,507
Net Earnings Attributable to PNMR per Common Share         
Basic$1.00
 $1.47
 $0.2
 $1.46
 $1.26
Diluted$1.00
 $1.46
 $0.2
 $1.45
 $1.25
Cash Flow Data         
Net cash flows from operating activities$524,462
 $415,454
 $386,874
 $414,876
 $386,587
Net cash flows from investing activities$(466,163) $(699,375) $(544,528) $(485,329) $(331,446)
Net cash flows from financing activities$(58,847) $242,392
 $175,431
 $96,194
 $(61,593)
Total Assets$6,646,103
 $6,471,080
 $6,009,328
 $5,790,237
 $5,426,858
Long-Term Debt, including current installments$2,437,645
 $2,392,712
 $2,091,948
 $1,962,385
 $1,730,749
Common Stock Data         
Market price per common share at year end$40.45
 $34.30
 $30.57
 $29.63
 $24.12
Book value per common share at year end$21.28
 $21.04
 $20.78
 $21.61
 $21.01
Tangible book value per share at year end$17.79
 $17.55
 $17.28
 $18.12
 $17.52
Average number of common shares outstanding – diluted80,141
 80,132
 80,139
 80,279
 80,431
Dividends declared per common share$0.9925
 $0.9025
 $0.8200
 $0.7550
 $0.6800
Capitalization         
PNMR common stockholders’ equity40.9% 41.1% 44.0% 46.6% 49.0%
Preferred stock of subsidiary, without mandatory redemption requirements0.3
 0.3
 0.3
 0.3
 0.3
Long-term debt58.8
 58.6
 55.7
 53.1
 50.7
 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%




A - 27



PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPARATIVE OPERATING STATISTICS
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands)
PNM Revenues         
Residential$419,105
 $395,490
 $427,958
 $411,412
 $411,579
Commercial408,354
 394,150
 437,279
 428,085
 415,621
Industrial58,851
 56,650
 75,308
 73,002
 74,552
Public authority23,604
 23,174
 26,202
 25,278
 25,745
Economy service30,645
 31,121
 35,132
 39,123
 32,909
Transmission45,932
 34,267
 33,216
 38,284
 38,228
Firm-requirements wholesale4,468
 22,497
 31,263
 38,313
 42,370
Other sales for resale (1)
101,897
 70,375
 63,195
 82,508
 67,538
Mark-to-market activity1,317
 (1,645) (5,270) 5,996
 293
Other10,057
 9,834
 6,912
 5,913
 7,477
Total PNM Revenues$1,104,230
 $1,035,913
 $1,131,195
 $1,147,914
 $1,116,312
TNMP Revenues         
Residential$126,587
 $124,462
 $120,771
 $114,826
 $111,373
Commercial106,503
 103,174
 102,956
 99,701
 95,098
Industrial18,140
 17,427
 16,316
 15,049
 13,084
Other89,543
 81,975
 67,844
 58,363
 52,056
Total TNMP Revenues$340,773
 $327,038
 $307,887
 $287,939
 $271,611

(1) Includes sales to Tri-State under hazard sharing agreement (Note 17).
PNM MWh Sales         
Residential3,136,066
 3,189,527
 3,185,363
 3,169,071
 3,304,350
Commercial3,774,417
 3,831,295
 3,800,472
 3,874,292
 3,954,774
Industrial850,914
 875,109
 957,308
 984,130
 1,041,160
Public authority250,500
 249,860
 246,496
 251,187
 266,368
Economy service722,501
 805,733
 796,430
 758,629
 719,342
Firm-requirements wholesale87,600
 429,345
 444,495
 527,597
 654,135
Other sales for resale (1)
3,632,137
 2,899,322
 2,110,947
 2,271,480
 2,061,851
Total PNM MWh Sales12,454,135
 12,280,191
 11,541,511
 11,836,386
 12,001,980
TNMP MWh Sales         
Residential2,936,291
 2,933,938
 2,912,019
 2,802,768
 2,796,661
Commercial2,793,263
 2,742,366
 2,654,102
 2,583,664
 2,472,979
Industrial3,202,528
 2,976,800
 2,804,919
 2,708,151
 2,576,762
Other94,767
 98,596
 100,999
 102,118
 104,516
Total TNMP MWh Sales9,026,849
 8,751,700
 8,472,039
 8,196,701
 7,950,918

(1) Includes sales to Tri-State under hazard sharing agreement (Note 17).



A - 28



PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPARATIVE OPERATING STATISTICS
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
PNM Customers         
Residential465,950
 462,921
 459,353
 455,907
 453,218
Commercial56,655
 56,357
 56,107
 55,853
 55,447
Industrial239
 247
 250
 249
 251
Economy service1
 1
 1
 1
 1
Other sales for resale36
 36
 39
 39
 34
Other931
 887
 908
 911
 928
Total PNM Customers523,812
 520,449
 516,658
 512,960
 509,879
TNMP Consumers         
Residential207,788
 204,744
 202,359
 199,963
 196,799
Commercial39,814
 39,817
 39,014
 38,033
 37,460
Industrial82
 66
 70
 70
 70
Other1,948
 1,993
 2,018
 2,044
 2,070
Total TNMP Consumers249,632
 246,620
 243,461
 240,110
 236,399
PNM Generation Statistics         
Net Capability – MW, including PPAs (1)
2,580
 2,791
 2,787
 2,707
 2,572
Coincidental Peak Demand – MW1,843
 1,908
 1,889
 1,878
 2,008
Average Fuel Cost per MMBTU$1.704
 $1.821
 $2.168
 $2.415
 $2.237
BTU per KWh of Net Generation10,396
 9,975
 10,456
 10,422
 10,308
          
(1) 2017 amount is reflective of the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 in December 2017 and restructured ownership of SJGS Unit 4 as of December 31, 2017



A - 29



ITEM 7.MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for PNMR is presented on a combined basis, including certain information applicable to PNM and TNMP. The MD&A for PNM and TNMP is presented as permitted by Form 10-K General Instruction I (2). A reference to a “Note” in this Item 7 refers to the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part II, Item 8, unless otherwise specified. Certain of the tables below may not appear visually accurate due to rounding.
MD&A FOR PNMR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview and Strategy
PNMR is a holding company with two regulated utilities serving approximately 773,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers and end-users of electricity in New Mexico and Texas. PNMR’s electric utilities are PNM and TNMP.
Strategic Goals
PNMR is focused on achieving three key strategic goals:

Earning authorized returns on regulated businesses
Delivering above industry-average earnings and dividend growth
Maintaining solid investment grade credit ratings

In conjunction with these goals, PNM and TNMP are dedicated to:

Maintaining strong employee safety, plant performance, and system reliability
Delivering a superior customer experience
Demonstrating environmental stewardship in their business operations
Supporting the communities in their service territories

Earning Authorized Returns on Regulated Businesses

PNMR’s success in accomplishing its strategic goals is highly dependent on two key factors: fair and timely regulatory treatment for its utilities and the utilities’ strong operating performance. The Company has multiple strategies to achieve favorable regulatory treatment, all of which have as their foundation a focus on the basics: safety, operational excellence, and customer satisfaction, while engaging stakeholders to build productive relationships. Both PNM and TNMP seek cost recovery for their investments through general rate cases and various rate riders.

Fair and timely rate treatment from regulators is crucial to PNM and TNMP in earning their allowed returns and critical for PNMR to achieve its strategic goals. PNMR believes that earning allowed returns is viewed positively by credit rating agencies and that improvements in the Company’s ratings could lower costs to utility customers. Also, earning allowed returns should result in increased earnings for PNMR. Additional information about rate filings is provided in Note 17.

State Regulation

New Mexico 2015 Rate Case – On September 28, 2016, the NMPRC issued an order that authorized PNM to implement an increase in base non-fuel rates of $61.2 million for New Mexico retail customers, effective for bills sent after September 30, 2016. This order was on PNM’s application for a general increase in retail electric rates (the “NM 2015 Rate Case”) filed in August 2015. PNM’s application requested an increase in base non-fuel revenues of $121.5 million based on a future test year (“FTY”) beginning October 1, 2015. The primary drivers of the revenue deficiency were infrastructure investments and declines in forecasted energy sales due to successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors. PNM also proposed changes to rate design to provide fairer pricing across rate classes and better align cost recovery with cost causation.

Following public hearings, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued a recommended decision in August 2016 proposing an increase in non-fuel revenues of $41.3 million (the “August 2016 RD”). The NMPRC’s September 26, 2016 order approved many aspects of the August 2016 RD, including the determination that PNM was imprudent in purchasing 64.1 MW of previously leased capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, extending the leases for 114.6 MW of capacity of PVNGS Units 1 and 2, and installing BDT

A - 30



equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4. However, the order also made certain significant modifications to the August 2016 RD. Major components of the difference between the increase in non-fuel revenues approved in the order and PNM’s request, include:

A ROE of 9.575%, compared to the 10.5% requested by PNM
Inclusion of the January 2016 purchase of the assets underlying three leases of capacity, totaling 64.1 MW, of PVNGS Unit 2 (Note 7) at an initial rate base value of $83.7 million, compared to PNM’s request for recovery of the fair market value purchase price of $163.3 million; and disallowance of the recovery of the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW was being leased by PNM, which costs totaled $43.8 million when the order was issued
Disallowance of the recovery of any future contributions for PVNGS decommissioning costs related to the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 purchased in January 2016 and the 114.6 MW of the leased capacity in PVNGS Units 1 and 2 that were extended for eight years beginning January 15, 2015 and 2016 (Note 7)
Disallowance of recovery of the costs associated with converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT, which is required by the NSR permit for SJGS (Note 16), but allows recovery of avoided operating and maintenance expenses of $0.3 million annually related to BDT; PNM’s share of the costs of installing the BDT equipment was $52.3 million, $40.0 million of which PNM requested be included in rate base in the NM 2015 Rate Case
Disallowance of recovery of $4.5 million of amounts recorded as regulatory assets and deferred charges

The order continued the renewable energy rider and approved certain aspects of PNM’s proposals regarding rate design, but did not approve certain other rate design proposals or PNM’s request for a revenue decoupling pilot program. The order also proposed changes in the methods of recovering certain costs through PNM’s FPPAC and renewable energy rider. The order credited retail customers with 100% of the New Mexico jurisdictional portion of revenues from “refined coal” (a third-party pre-treatment process) at SJGS. The order approved PNM’s proposals for revised depreciation rates (with certain exceptions), and the ratemaking treatment of the “prepaid pension asset.”

On September 30, 2016, PNM filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court regarding the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case. On October 26, 2016, PNM filed a statement of issues related to its appeal with the NM Supreme Court, which stated PNM is appealing the NMPRC’s determination that PNM was imprudent in the actions taken to purchase the previously leased 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, extending the leases for 114.6 MW of capacity of PVNGS Units 1 and 2, and installing BDT equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4. Specifically, PNM’s statement indicated it is appealing the following elements of the NMPRC’s order:

Disallowance of recovery of the full fair market value purchase price of the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 purchased in January 2016
Disallowance of the recovery of the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW of capacity was leased by PNM
Disallowance of recovery of future contributions for PVNGS decommissioning attributable to 64.1 MW of purchased capacity and the 114.6 MW of capacity under the extended leases
Disallowance of recovery of the costs of converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT

NEE, NMIEC, and ABCWUA filed notices of cross appeal to PNM’s appeal. The issues that are being appealed by the various cross-appellants are:

The NMPRC allowing PNM to recover the costs of the lease extensions for the 114.6 MW of PVNGS Units 1 and 2 and any of the purchase price for the 64.1 MW in PVNGS Unit 2
The NMPRC allowing PNM to recover the costs incurred under the new coal supply contract for Four Corners
The revised method to collect PNM’s fuel and purchased power costs under the FPPAC
The final rate design
The NMPRC allowing PNM to include the “prepaid pension asset” in rate base

NEE subsequently filed a motion for a partial stay of the order at the NM Supreme Court, which was denied. The NM Supreme Court stated that the court’s intent was to request that PNM reimburse ratepayers for any amount overcharged should the cross-appellants prevail on the merits.

On February 17, 2017, PNM filed its Brief in Chief, and pursuant to the court’s rules, the briefing schedule was completed on July 21, 2017. Oral argument at the NM Supreme Court was held on October 30, 2017. Although appeals of regulatory actions of the NMPRC have a priority at the NM Supreme Court under New Mexico law, there is no required time frame for the court to act on the appeals.


A - 31



PNM evaluated the accounting consequences of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case and the likelihood of being successful on the issues it is appealing in the NM Supreme Court as required under GAAP. The evaluation indicated it is reasonably possible that PNM will be successful on the issues it is appealing. If the NM Supreme Court rules in PNM’s favor on some or all of the issues, those issues would be remanded back to the NMPRC for further action. PNM originally estimated that it would take a minimum of 15 months, from the date PNM filed its appeal, for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues. During such time, the rates specified in the order will remain in effect. Accordingly, at September 30, 2016, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $11.3 million, representing 15 months of capital cost recovery for the period October 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017 on its investments that the order disallowed, as well as amounts recorded as regulatory assets and deferred charges that the order disallowed and which PNM did not challenge in its appeal. The NM Supreme Court did not render a decision on the case by December 31, 2017, the end of the originally estimated 15 month period. As of December 31, 2017, PNM updated its evaluation of the issues it is appealing in the NM Supreme Court. Although PNM cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, PNM’s evaluation continues to indicate it is reasonably possible that PNM will be successful on the issues it is appealing and that it will take a minimum of an additional seven months from December 31, 2017 for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues. On December 31, 2017, PNM recorded an additional pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $3.1 million, representing seven months of capital cost recovery on its investments the order disallowed. Additional losses will be recorded if the estimated time frame for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues is further extended.

PNM continues to believe that the disallowed investments, which are the subject of PNM’s appeal, were prudently incurred and that PNM is entitled to full recovery of those investments through the ratemaking process. If PNM’s appeal is unsuccessful, PNM would record additional pre-tax losses related to any unsuccessful issues. The December 31, 2017 book values of PNM’s investments that the order disallowed, after considering the losses recorded through December 31, 2017, were $75.3 million for the 64.1 MW of purchased capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, $39.1 million for the PVNGS Unit 2 disallowed capital improvements, and $49.4 million for the BDT equipment.

PNM does not believe that the likelihood of the cross-appeals being successful is probable. However, if the NM Supreme Court were to overturn all of the issues subject to the cross-appeals and, upon remand, the NMPRC did not provide any cost recovery of those items, PNM would write-off all of the costs to acquire the assets previously leased under three leases aggregating 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2 capacity, totaling $151.1 million at December 31, 2017 (which amount includes $75.3 million that is the subject of PNM’s appeal discussed above) after considering the losses recorded through December 31, 2017. The impacts of not recovering costs for the lease extensions, new coal supply contract for Four Corners, and “prepaid pension asset” in rate base would be recognized in future periods reflecting that rates charged to customers would not recover those costs as they are incurred. The outcomes of the cross-appeals regarding the FPPAC and rate design should not have a financial impact to PNM.

New Mexico 2016 Rate Case – On December 7, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for a general increase in retail electric rates (the “NM 2016 Rate Case”). PNM did not include any of the costs disallowed in the NM 2015 Rate Case that are at issue in its pending appeal to the NM Supreme Court. Key aspects of PNM’s request in the NM 2016 Rate Case were:

An increase in base non-fuel revenues of $99.2 million
Based on a FTY beginning January 1, 2018 (the NMPRC’s rules specify that a FTY is a 12 month period beginning up to 13 months after the filing of a material nature are discussedrate case application)
A ROE of 10.125%
Drivers of revenue deficiency
Implementation of the modifications in PNM’s resource portfolio, which were previously approved by the NMPRC as part of the SJGS regional haze compliance plan (see below and Note 16)
Infrastructure investments, including environmental upgrades at Four Corners
Declines in forecasted energy sales due to successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors
Updates in the FERC/retail jurisdictional allocations
Proposed changes to rate design to establish fair and equitable pricing across rate classes and to better align cost recovery with cost causation
Increased customer and demand charges
A “lost contribution to fixed cost” mechanism applicable to residential and small commercial customers to address the regulatory disincentive associated with PNM’s energy efficiency programs

After NMPRC ordered settlement discussions were held, PNM and representatives of several intervenors reached an agreement on the parameters for a settlement in this proceeding. In May 2017, PNM and thirteen intervenors (the “Signatories”) entered into a comprehensive stipulation. On May 12, 2017, the Hearing Examiners issued an order rejecting the stipulation in its then current form and allowing the Signatories to revise the stipulation. On May 23, 2017, the Signatories filed a revised

A - 32



stipulation that addressed the issues raised by the Hearing Examiners in their order. NEE was the sole party opposing the revised stipulation. The terms of the revised stipulation included:

A revenue increase totaling $62.3 million, with an initial increase of $32.3 million beginning January 1, 2018 and the remaining increase beginning January 1, 2019
A ROE of 9.575%
Full recovery of PNM’s investment in SCRs at Four Corners with a debt-only return
An agreement not to seek to adjust non-fuel base rate changes to be effective prior to January 1, 2020
An agreement to adjust the January 2019 increase for certain changes in federal corporate tax laws and to true-up PNM’s cost of debt
Returning to customers over a three-year period the benefit of the reduction in the New Mexico corporate income tax rate to the extent known. Also, referattributable to Disclosure Regarding Forward Looking StatementsPNM’s retail operations
PNM would withdraw its proposal for a “lost contribution to fixed cost” mechanism with the issue to be addressed in Part I, Itema future docket
PNM would perform a cost benefit analysis in its 2020 IRP of the impact of a possible early exit from Four Corners in 2024 and 2028

A public hearing on the revised stipulation was held in August 2017. On October 31, 2017, the Hearing Examiners issued a Certification of Stipulation recommending modifications to the revised stipulation that would identify PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners as imprudent, not allow PNM to collect a debt or equity return on $148.1 million of investments in SCRs and other projects at Four Corners, and to temporarily disallow recovery of $36.8 of PNM’s projected capital improvements at SJGS. On December 20, 2017, the NMPRC issued anorder approving the Certification of Stipulation with certain changes, which included requiring the impacts of changes related to the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate and PNM’s cost of debt be implemented effective January 1, 2018 rather than January 1, 2019 and deferring further consideration regarding the prudency of PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners to a future proceeding.

On December 28, 2017, PNM filed a motion requesting rehearing and asking the NMPRC to vacate their December 20, 2017 order. Several signatories to the revised stipulation filed a separate motion for rehearing asking that the NMPRC approve the revised stipulation without modification. NEE filed a response urging the NMPRC to reject PNM’s motion. On January 3, 2018, the NMPRC vacated its December 20, 2017 order and granted the motions for rehearing, which was held on January 10, 2018. The NMPRC issued an order dated January 10, 2018 that approved the Certification of Stipulation with certain changes, which included allowing PNM to recover its $148.1 million of investments in SCR and other projects at Four Corners with a debt-only return (but maintaining the recommended disallowance of an equity return), deferring further consideration regarding the prudency of PNM’s decisions to continue its participation in Four Corners to PNM’s next general rate case, requiring the impacts of changes related to the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate and PNM’s cost of debt be implemented in 2018 rather than January 1, 2019, and requiring PNM to reduce its requested $62.3 million increase in non-fuel revenues by $9.1 million.

On January 16, 2018, PNM requested clarifying changes to that order to adjust the $9.1 million reduction to $4.4 million, asserting that $4.7 million of the reduction was duplicative. PNM’s request was approved by the NMPRC. After implementation of changes to the federal corporate income tax rate and cost of debt, the order results in a net increase to PNM’s non-fuel revenue requirement of $10.3 million. PNM implemented 50% of the approved increase for service rendered, rather than bills rendered, on or after February 1, 2018 and will implement the rest of the increase for service rendered on or after January 1, 2019. GAAP requires PNM to recognize a loss reflecting that it will earn a debt-only return on $148.1 million of investments at Four Corners rather than a full return. Accordingly, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $27.9 million as of December 31, 2017.

On February 7, 2018, NEE filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court asking the court to review the NMPRC’s decisions in the NM 2016 Rate Case. The notice does not set forth the basis of the appeal, which, as required by the court’s rules, is to be filed by March 9, 2018. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Advanced Metering In September 2011, TNMP began its deployment of advanced meters for homes and businesses across its service area. TNMP completed its mass deployment in 2016 and has installed more than 242,000 advanced meters. As part of the State of Texas’ long-term initiative to create an advanced electric grid, installation of advanced meters will ultimately give consumers more data about their energy consumption and help them make more informed decisions. In addition, TNMP has completed installation of a new outage management system that will leverage capabilities of the advanced metering infrastructure to enhance TNMP’s responsiveness to outages.

On February 26, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC requesting approval of a project to replace its existing customer metering equipment with Advanced Metering Infrastructure (“AMI”). The application also asks the NMPRC to authorize the recovery, in future ratemaking proceedings, of the cost of the project, currently estimated to be $95.1 million, as well as to

A - 33



approve the recovery of the remaining undepreciated investment in existing metering equipment estimated to be approximately $33 million and the costs of customer education and severance for any affected employees. During a March 2017 hearing, it was identified that the proposed meter contractor may not have complied with certain New Mexico contractor licensing requirements. PNM subsequently filed testimony regarding that matter as ordered by the Hearing Examiner and requested a new procedural schedule to allow it to issue a new RFP for contracting work related to the meter installation and to update its cost-benefit analysis. An additional hearing was held in October 2017. PNM does not intend to proceed with the AMI project unless the NMPRC approves the entire application. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

PVNGS Unit 3 Through December 31, 2017, PNM’s 134 MW interest in PVNGS Unit 3 was excluded from NMPRC jurisdictional rates. The power generated from that interest was sold into the wholesale market and any earnings or losses were realized by shareholders. As part of compliance with the requirements for BART at SJGS discussed below, the NMPRC approved including PVNGS Unit 3 as a jurisdictional resource in the determination of rates charged to customers in New Mexico beginning in 2018. PVNGS Unit 3 is included as a jurisdictional resource in PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case (Note 17).

Rate Riders and Interim Rate Relief – The PUCT has approved mechanisms that allow TNMP to recover capital invested in transmission and distribution projects without having to file a general rate case. This permits more timely recovery of investments. The PUCT has also approved riders that allow TNMP to recover amounts related to AMS, energy efficiency, third-party transmission costs, and the CTC. The NMPRC has approved PNM recovering fuel costs through the FPPAC, as well as rate riders for renewable energy and energy efficiency that allow for more timely recovery of investments and improve PNM’s ability to earn its authorized return.

TNMP General Rate Case – TNMP’s last general rate case was filed in 2010 with new rates becoming effective on February 1, 2011. In connection with TNMP’s deployment of its AMS, TNMP has committed to file a general rate case no later than September 1, 2018. TNMP currently anticipates filing its general rate case in May 2018 using a 2017 calendar year test period. New rates are anticipated to become effective during January 2019.

FERC Regulation

Rates PNM charges wholesale transmission customers and wholesale generation services customers are subject to traditional rate regulation by FERC. For a number of years, PNM allocated a portion of its generation assets to serve FERC wholesale generation services customers. The low natural gas price environment resulted in market prices for power being substantially lower than what PNM is able to offer wholesale generation customers under the cost of service model that FERC requires PNM to use.  As a result of this change in market conditions, PNM had not been earning an adequate return on the assets required to serve wholesale generation contracts. Consequently, PNM decided to stop pursuing wholesale generation contracts. Currently, PNM has no full-requirements wholesale generation customers.

Rates charged to wholesale electric transmission are based on a formula rate mechanism pursuant to which rates for wholesale transmission service are calculated annually in accordance with an approved formula. The formula includes updating cost of service components, including investment in plant and operating expenses, based on information contained in PNM’s annual financial report filed with FERC, as well as including projected large transmission capital projects to be placed into service in the following year. The projections included are subject to true-up in the following year formula rate. Certain items, including changes to return on equity and depreciation rates, require a separate filing to be made with FERC before being included in the formula rate.

Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. – PNM had a PSA, which contained an expiration date in 2035, to supply power to NEC that was approved by FERC in April 2013. On April 8, 2015, NEC filed a petition for a declaratory order requesting that FERC find that NEC could purchase an unlimited amount of power and energy from third party supplier(s) under the PSA. PNM intervened, requesting that FERC deny NEC’s petition. FERC set the matter for a public hearing concerning the parties’ intent with regard to certain provisions of the PSA and held the hearing in abeyance to provide time for settlement judge procedures.

On October 29, 2015, PNM and NEC entered into, and filed with FERC, a settlement agreement, which FERC approved in January 2016. Under the agreement, PNM served all of NEC’s load through December 31, 2015 at rates that were substantially consistent with those provided under the PSA. In 2016, PNM served all of NEC’s load at reduced demand and energy rates from those under the PSA. The PSA terminated on December 31, 2016. In 2017, PNM served 10 MW of NEC’s load under a short-term coordination tariff at a rate lower than provided under the PSA, but higher than prices available under short-term market rates at the time of the settlement. In 2017, 2016 and 2015, revenues from NEC were $4.5 million, $20.0 million, and $27.1 million. Although the settlement agreement negatively impacted results of operations in 2017, PNM mitigated these impacts through market sales of power that would have been sold to NEC, reductions in fuel and transmission expenses, and other measures. PNM’s NM

A - 34



2016 Rate Case discussed above reflects a reallocation of costs among regulatory jurisdictions reflecting the termination of the contract to serve NEC.
Delivering Above Industry-Average Earnings and Dividend Growth
PNMR’s strategic goal to deliver above industry-average earnings and dividend growth enables investors to realize the value of their investment in the Company’s business. PNMR’s current target is 6% earnings growth for the period 2018 through 2021. Earnings growth is based on ongoing earnings, which is a non-GAAP financial measure that excludes from GAAP earnings certain non-recurring, infrequent, and other items that are not indicative of fundamental changes in the earnings capacity of the Company’s operations. PNMR uses ongoing earnings to evaluate the operations of the Company and to establish goals, including those used for certain aspects of incentive compensation, for management and employees.

PNMR targets a dividend payout ratio of 50% to 60% of its ongoing earnings. PNMR expects to provide above industry-average dividend growth in the near-term and to manage the payout ratio to meet its long-term target. The Board will continue
to evaluate the dividend on an annual basis, considering sustainability and growth, capital planning, and industry standards. The Board approved the following increases in the indicated annual common stock dividend:
Approval DatePercent Increase
February 201216%
February 201314%
December 201312%
December 20148%
December 201510%
December 201610%
December 20179%

Maintaining Solid Investment Grade Credit Ratings

The Company is committed to maintaining solid investment grade credit ratings in order to reduce the cost of debt financing and to help ensure access to credit markets, when required. See the subheading Liquidity included in the full discussion of Liquidity and Capital Resources below for the specific credit ratings for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP. Currently, all of the credit ratings issued by both Moody’s and S&P on the Company’s debt are investment grade. In June 2017, Moody’s changed the outlook for PNMR and PNM from stable to positive while maintaining a stable outlook for TNMP. In January 2018, S&P changed the outlook for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP from stable to negative.

Business and Strategic Focus

PNMR strives to create enduring value for customers, communities, and shareholders. PNMR’s strategy and decision-making are focused on safely providing reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible power. The Company works closely with customers, stakeholders, legislators, and regulators to ensure that resource plans and infrastructure investments benefit from robust public dialogue and balance the diverse needs of our communities. Equally important is the focus of PNMR’s utilities on customer satisfaction and community engagement.

Reliable and Affordable Power
PNMR and its utilities are aware of the important roles they play in enhancing economic vitality in their service territories. Management believes that maintaining strong and modern electric infrastructure is critical to ensuring reliability and supporting economic growth. When contemplating expanding or relocating their operations, businesses consider energy affordability and reliability to be important factors. PNM and TNMP strive to balance service affordability with infrastructure investment to maintain a high level of electric reliability and to deliver a superior customer experience. Investing in PNM’s and TNMP’s infrastructure is critical to ensuring reliability and meeting future energy needs. Both utilities have long-established records of providing customers with reliable electric service.

Utility Plant and Strategic Investments

Utility Plant Investments – During the 2015 to 2017 period, PNM and TNMP together invested $1,552.0 million in utility plant, including substations, power plants, nuclear fuel, and transmission and distribution systems. PNM completed the 40 MW natural gas-fired La Luz peaking generating station located near Belen, New Mexico in December 2015. PNM also completed installation of SNCR and BDT equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4 in early 2016 and the addition of 40 MW of PNM-owned solar

A - 35



PV facilities in 2015. In addition, on January 15, 2016, PNM completed the $163.3 million acquisition of 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 that had previously been leased to Risk FactorsPNM.

Strategic Investments – In 2017, PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners created NM Renewable Development, LLC (“NMRD”) to pursue the acquisition, development, and ownership of renewable energy generation projects, primarily in Part I, Item 1A.the state of New Mexico. Abundant renewable resources, large tracts of affordable land, and strong government and community support make New Mexico a favorable location for renewable generation. New Mexico has the 2nd highest technical potential of the 48 contiguous states for utility scale solar photovoltaics as noted in 2015 by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, while New Mexico is 6th for technical potential for land-based wind. PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners each have a 50% ownership interest in NMRD. Through NMRD, PNMR anticipates being able to provide additional renewable generation solutions to customers within and surrounding its regulated jurisdictions through partnering with a subsidiary of one of the United States’ largest electric utilities. The formation of this joint venture provides a more efficient use of PNMR’s capital to support new renewable investment opportunities while maintaining the necessary capital to support investments required by PNM’s regulated jurisdictions. NMRD’s current renewable energy capacity under contract is 31.8 MW. This includes 11.8 MW of solar PV facilities currently in operation, consisting of 10 MW required to supply energy to a new data center in PNM’s service territory (Note 17) and 1.8 MW to supply energy to Columbus Electric Cooperative located in southwest New Mexico. At December 31, 2017, NMRD also had 20 MW of solar PV facilities under construction, which will be completed in mid-2018 and will also be used to supply the new data center. NMRD is actively exploring opportunities for additional renewable projects. In addition, NMRD will evaluate potential bid opportunities for future renewable projects, including large-scale projects to serve future data center and other customer needs.

Integrated Resource Plan

NMPRC rules require that investor-owned utilities file an IRP every three years. The IRP is required to cover a 20-year planning period and contain an action plan covering the first four years of that period. PNM filed its 2014 IRP on July 1, 2014. The four-year action plan was consistent with the replacement resources identified in PNM’s application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. PNM indicated that it planned to meet its anticipated energy demand with a combination of additional renewable energy resources, energy efficiency, and natural gas-fired facilities.

PNM filed its 2017 IRP on July 3, 2017. Under the NMPRC’s order concerning SJGS’ compliance with the BART requirements of the CAA discussed in Note 16, PNM is required to make a filing in 2018 to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after June 30, 2022. The 2017 IRP analyzed several scenarios utilizing assumptions that PNM continues service from its SJGS capacity beyond mid-2022 and that PNM retires its capacity after mid-2022. Key findings of the 2017 IRP include:

Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 after the expiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements would provide long-term cost savings for PNM’s customers
PNM exiting its ownership interest in Four Corners after its current coal supply agreement expires in 2031 would also provide long-term cost savings for customers
The best mix of new resources to replace the retired coal generation would include solar energy and flexible natural gas-fired peaking capacity; the mix could include energy storage if the economics support it and wind energy provided additional transmission capacity becomes available
Significant increases in future wind energy supplies will likely require new transmission capacity to be built from eastern New Mexico to PNM’s service territory
PNM should retain the currently leased capacity in PVNGS, which would avoid replacement with carbon-emitting generation
PNM should continue to develop and implement energy efficiency and demand management programs
PNM should assess the costs and benefits of participating in the California Energy Imbalance Market
PNM should analyze its current Reeves Generating Station to consider possible technology improvements to phase out the older generators and replace them with new, more flexible supplies or energy storage

Several parties filed protests to the 2017 IRP. The issues addressed in the protests include PNM’s future interest in SJGS, Four Corners, and PVNGS and the timing of future procurement of renewable resources. The 2017 IRP is not a final determination of PNM’s future generation portfolio. Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS capacity and exiting Four Corners would require NMPRC approval of abandonment filings, which PNM would make at appropriate times in the future. Likewise, NMPRC approval of new generation resources through CCN filings would be required. PNM cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the 2017 IRP process or whether the NMPRC will approve subsequent filings that would encompass actions to implement the conclusions of the 2017 IRP.

A-A - 36



Environmentally Responsible Power
PNMR has a long-standing record of environmental stewardship. PNM’s environmental focus has been in three key areas:

Developing strategies to meet regional haze rules at the coal-fired SJGS as cost-effectively as possible while providing broad environmental benefits that also demonstrate progress in addressing CO2 emissions from existing power plants
Preparing to meet New Mexico’s increasing renewable energy requirements as cost-effectively as possible
Increasing energy efficiency participation

PNMR’s Sustainability Portal provides key environmental and sustainability information related to PNM’s and TNMP’s operations and is available at http://www.pnmresources.com/about-us/sustainability-portal.aspx. The portal also contains a Climate Change Report, which outlines plans to be coal-free by 2031 (subject to regulatory approval). This could enable an 87% reduction in CO2 emissions in 2040 compared to 2012 levels. This is a significantly greater reduction than that required of New Mexico under EPA’s Clean Power Plan.

SJGS

Regional Haze Rule Compliance Plan – In December 2015, PNM received NMPRC approval for the plan to comply with the EPA regional haze rule at SJGS that minimizes the cost impact to customers while still achieving broad environmental benefits. Under the approved plan, the installation of SNCRs on SJGS Units 1 and 4 was completed in early 2016 and Units 2 and 3 were retired in December 2017. The plan provides for similar visibility improvements, but at a lower cost to PNM customers than a previous EPA ruling that would have required the installation of more expensive SCRs on all four units at SJGS. The plan has the added advantage of reducing other emissions in addition to NOx, including SO2, particulate matter, CO2, and mercury, as well as reducing water usage. Additional information is contained in Note 16.

Under the key provisions of the order approving the compliance plan, PNM:

Retired SJGS Units 2 and 3 (PNM’s ownership interest was 418 MW) in December 2017 and will recover, over 20 years, 50% ($125.5 million) of their undepreciated net book value at that date and earn a regulated return on those costs
Acquired an additional 132 MW in SJGS Unit 4 under an approved CCN, with an initial book value of zero plus SNCR costs and whatever portion of BDT costs the NMPRC determines to be reasonable and prudent to be allowed for recovery in rates (an aggregate of $20.7 million) (see New Mexico Rate Cases above and Note 17)
Was granted a CCN for 134 MW of PVNGS Unit 3 with an initial rate base value equal to the book value as of December 31, 2017 ($154.9 million)
Acquired 65 MW of SJGS Unit 4 as merchant utility plant, which will not be included in rates charged to retail customers
Will accelerate recovery of SNCR costs on SJGS Units 1 and 4 so that the costs are fully recovered by July 1, 2022
Is required to make a NMPRC filing in 2018 to determine the extent that SJGS should continue serving PNM’s customers’ needs after mid-2022
Will acquire and retire one MWh of RECs that include a zero-CO2 emission attribute beginning January 1, 2020 for every MWh produced by 197 MW of coal-fired generation from PNM’s ownership share of SJGS (the cost of these RECs would be capped at $7.0 million per year and recovered in rates)
Did not recover approximately $20 million of increased operations and maintenance expenses and other costs incurred in connection with CAA compliance

At December 31, 2015, PNM recorded pre-tax losses aggregating $165.7 million to reflect the write-off of the 50% of the estimated December 31, 2017 net book value of SJGS Units 2 and 3 that will not be recovered, the other unrecoverable costs, and the increase in the estimated liability recorded for coal mine reclamation resulting from the new coal mine reclamation arrangement entered into in conjunction with the new coal supply agreement (“SJGS CSA”). PNM recorded additional pre-tax losses of $3.7 million in 2016 and reversed previously recorded losses of $4.0 million in 2017 resulting from revised estimates of these items. Additional information about the SJGS CSA is discussed below and in Note 16.

On January 14, 2016, NEE filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court of the NMPRC’s December 2015 order. The NM Supreme Court has taken no action on the appeal and there is no required time frame for the court to act on the appeal. On March 31, 2016, NEE filed a complaint against PNM with the NMPRC regarding the financing provided by NM Capital to facilitate the sale of SJCC. The complaint alleges that PNM failed to comply with its discovery obligation in the SJGS abandonment case and requests the NMPRC investigate whether the financing transactions could adversely affect PNM’s ability to provide electric service to its retail customers. PNM responded to the complaint on May 4, 2016. The NMPRC has taken no action on this matter.


A - 37



SJGS Ownership Restructuring In connection with the proposed retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3, some of the SJGS participants expressed a desire to exit their ownership in the plant. As a result, the SJGS participants negotiated a restructuring of the ownership in SJGS and addressed the obligations of the exiting participants for plant decommissioning, mine reclamation, environmental matters, and certain future operating costs, among other items.

The San Juan Project Restructuring Agreement (“SJGS RA”) sets forth the agreement among the SJGS owners regarding ownership restructuring. Key provisions of the SJGS RA include:

Capacity acquisition – On December 31, 2017, PNM was to acquire 132 MW and PNMR Development was to acquire 65 MW of the exiting owners’ capacity in SJGS Unit 4. PNMR Development assigned the rights and obligations related to the 65 MW to PNM effective on December 31, 2017, to facilitate dispatch of power from that capacity. As ordered by the NMPRC, PNM will treat the 65 MW as merchant utility plant that will be excluded from retail rates. In anticipation of the transfer of ownership, PNM entered into agreements to sell the power from 36 MW of that capacity to a third party at a fixed price for the period January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2022.
Coal inventory – The SJGS RA also sets forth the terms under which PNM acquired the coal inventory of the exiting SJGS participants as of January 1, 2016 and supplied coal to the exiting participants during the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017, which arrangement provided economic benefits that were passed on to PNM’s customers through the FPPAC.
Coal supply – The SJGS RA became effective contemporaneously with the effectiveness of the new SJGS CSA. The effectiveness of the new SJGS CSA was dependent on the closing of the purchase of the existing coal mine operation by a new mine operator, which occurred on January 31, 2016. In support of the closing of the mine purchase and to facilitate PNM customer savings, NM Capital, a wholly-owned subsidiary of PNMR, provided funding of $125.0 million to Westmoreland San Juan, LLC (“WSJ”), a ring-fenced, bankruptcy-remote, special-purpose entity that is a subsidiary of Westmoreland Coal Company to finance the purchase price. NM Capital was able to provide the $125.0 million financing to WSJ by first entering into a $125.0 million term loan agreement with a commercial bank. PNMR guarantees NM Capital’s obligations to the bank. The Westmoreland Loan matures on February 1, 2021 and had an initial interest rate of 7.25% plus LIBOR, which escalates over time. Such rate is 12.25% plus LIBOR for the period from February 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019. WSJ must pay principal and interest quarterly to NM Capital in accordance with an amortization schedule. As of February 20, 2018, the balance of the Westmoreland Loan was $51.0 million.
Coal mine reclamation – Under the terms of the SJGS CSA, PNM and the other SJGS owners are obligated to compensate SJCC for all reclamation costs associated with the supply of coal from the San Juan mine. In connection with certain mining permits relating to the operation of the San Juan mine, SJCC is required to post reclamation bonds, which currently aggregate $118.7 million, with the NMMMD. PNMR has arrangements under which a bank has issued $30.3 million in letters of credit to facilitate posting of the required reclamation bonds. See Note 16.
Other SJGS Environmental Matters In addition to the regional haze rule, SJGS is required to comply with other rules currently being developed or implemented that affect coal-fired generating units, including rules regarding GHG under Section 111(d) of the CAA. Implementation of the Clean Power Plan, which was published by EPA in October 2015, is currently stayed by order of the US Supreme Court pending further proceedings before the DC Circuit. Oral argument was heard by the DC Circuit in September 2016, but the court has taken no action. On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Energy Independence.  The order sets out two general policies: promote clean and safe development of energy resources, while avoiding regulatory burdens, and ensure electricity is affordable, reliable, safe, secure, and clean.  The order rescinds various actions undertaken by the previous administration and directs the EPA Administrator to review and if appropriate suspend, revise, or rescind the Clean Power Plan, as well as other environmental regulations. On October 10, 2017, EPA issued a proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan based on a legal interpretation of the CAA under which the Clean Power Plan exceeds EPA’s statutory authority. EPA published the proposed repeal rule on October 16, 2017 and is accepting public comments until April 26, 2018. In addition, EPA published an advanced NOPR on December 28, 2017 to take comment on whether EPA should adopt a rule to replace the Clean Power Plan and what such a replacement rule might include, for which public comments were due February 26, 2018.
PNM estimates that implementation of the BART plan at SJGS, as well as potentially exiting ownership in the remaining units at SJGS (as well as Four Corners), as discussed above, should provide significant steps for New Mexico to meet its ultimate compliance with Section 111(d) under the Clean Power Plan or any replacement rule. PNM is unable to predict the impact of this rule on its fossil-fueled generation.

Because of environmental upgrades completed in 2009, SJGS has a mercury removal efficiency of 98% and mercury emissions are well below the mercury limit imposed by EPA in the 2011 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Major environmental upgrades on each of the four units at SJGS have significantly reduced emissions of NOx, SO2, particulate matter, and mercury.

A - 38



PNM
The table below summarizes operating results for PNM:
 Year Ended December 31, Change
 2015 2014 2013 2015/2014 2014/2013
 (In millions)
Electric operating revenues$1,131.2
 $1,147.9
 $1,116.3
 $(16.7) $31.6
Cost of energy391.1
 403.6
 374.7
 (12.5) 28.9
Margin740.1
 744.3
 741.6
 (4.2) 2.7
Operating expenses591.0
 422.1
 428.6
 168.9
 (6.5)
Depreciation and amortization115.7
 109.5
 103.8
 6.2
 5.7
Operating income33.4
 212.7
 209.2
 (179.3) 3.5
Other income (deductions)33.5
 20.8
 21.5
 12.7
 (0.7)
Interest charges(80.0) (79.4) (79.2) (0.6) (0.2)
Segment earnings (loss) before income taxes(13.1) 154.1
 151.5
 (167.2) 2.6
Income (taxes) benefit12.8
 (52.6) (48.8) 65.4
 (3.8)
Valencia non-controlling interest(14.9) (14.1) (14.5) (0.8) 0.4
Preferred stock dividend requirements(0.5) (0.5) (0.5) 
 
Segment earnings (loss)$(15.8) $86.8
 $87.6
 $(102.6) $(0.8)
Between 2006 and 2017, SJGS has reduced NOx emissions by 41%, SO2 by 70%, particulate matter by 61%, and mercury by 98%.

The following table shows PNM operating revenues by customer class and average number of customers:
 Year Ended December 31, Change
 2015 2014 2013 2015/2014 2014/2013
 (In millions, except customers)
Residential$428.0
 $411.4
 $411.6
 $16.6
 $(0.2)
Commercial437.3
 428.1
 415.6
 9.2
 12.5
Industrial75.3
 73.0
 74.6
 2.3
 (1.6)
Public authority26.2
 25.3
 25.7
 0.9
 (0.4)
Economy energy service35.1
 39.1
 32.9
 (4.0) 6.2
Transmission33.2
 38.3
 38.2
 (5.1) 0.1
Firm-requirements wholesale31.3
 38.3
 42.4
 (7.0) (4.1)
Other sales for resale63.2
 82.5
 67.5
 (19.3) 15.0
Mark-to-market activity(5.3) 6.0
 0.3
 (11.3) 5.7
Other6.9
 5.9
 7.5
 1.0
 (1.6)
 $1,131.2
 $1,147.9
 $1,116.3
 $(16.7) $31.6
Average retail customers (thousands)514.9
 511.2
 508.2
 3.7
 3.0


A-A - 39



The following table shows PNM GWh sales by customer class:
 Year Ended December 31, Change
 2015 2014 2013 2015/2014 2014/2013
 (Gigawatt hours)
Residential3,185.4
 3,169.1
 3,304.3
 16.3
 (135.2)
Commercial3,800.5
 3,874.3
 3,954.8
 (73.8) (80.5)
Industrial957.3
 984.1
 1,041.2
 (26.8) (57.1)
Public authority246.5
 251.2
 266.4
 (4.7) (15.2)
Economy energy service (1)
796.4
 758.6
 719.3
 37.8
 39.3
Firm-requirements wholesale444.5
 527.6
 654.1
 (83.1) (126.5)
Other sales for resale2,110.9
 2,271.5
 2,061.9
 (160.6) 209.6
 11,541.5
 11,836.4
 12,002.0
 (294.9) (165.6)

(1)
PNM purchases energy for a major customer on the customer’s behalf and delivers the energy to the customer’s location through PNM’s transmission system. PNM charges the customer for the cost of the energy as a direct pass through to the customer with no impact to PNM’s margin so there is only a minor impact in margin resulting from providing ancillary services. Although KWh sales to this customer increased in 2015, revenue decreased due to lower market prices.

Operating Results2015 ComparedRenewable Energy
PNM’s renewable procurement strategy includes utility-owned solar capacity, as well as wind and geothermal energy purchased under PPAs. As of December 31, 2017, PNM had 107 MW of utility-owned solar capacity. In addition, PNM purchases power from a customer-owned distributed solar generation program that had an installed capacity of 81.6 MW at December 31, 2017. PNM also owns the 500 KW PNM Prosperity Energy Storage Project, which uses advanced batteries to 2014store solar power and dispatch the energy either during high-use periods or when solar production is limited. The project was one of the first combinations of battery storage and PV energy in the nation and involved extensive research and development of advanced grid concepts. The facility also was the nation’s first solar storage facility fully integrated into a utility’s power grid. Since 2003, PNM has purchased the output from New Mexico Wind, a 204 MW wind facility, and began purchasing the output of Red Mesa Wind, an existing 102 MW wind energy center, on January 1, 2015. PNM has a 20-year agreement to purchase energy from the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility built near Lordsburg, New Mexico. The geothermal facility, which has a current capacity of 4 MW, began providing power to PNM in January 2014. PNM also purchases RECs as necessary to meet the RPS.
The majority of these renewable resources are key means for PNM to meet the RPS and related regulations that require PNM to achieve prescribed levels of energy sales from renewable sources, if that can be accomplished without exceeding the RCT limit set by the NMPRC. PNM makes renewable procurements consistent with the plans approved by the NMPRC. PNM’s 2017 renewable energy procurement plan meets RPS and diversity requirements for 2017 and 2018 using existing resources and does not propose any significant new procurements. The NMPRC approved the plan on November 23, 2016. On June 1, 2017, PNM filed its 2018 renewable energy procurement plan. PNM requested approval to procure an additional 80 GWh in 2019 and 105 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of New Mexico Wind; approval to procure an additional 55 GWh in 2019 and 77 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal; approval to procure 50 MW of new solar facilities to be constructed beginning in 2018; continuation of customer REC purchase programs; and other purchases of RECs to ensure annual compliance with the RPS. A public hearing on the application was held in September 2017. On October 17, 2017, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision that PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan be approved by the NMPRC, except for the re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal and PNM’s request to procure 50 MW of new solar facilities. The Hearing Examiner recommended that the PPA for the output of energy from Lightning Dock Geothermal be terminated effective January 1, 2018. The Hearing Examiner also recommended that PNM be required to issue another all-renewables RFP allowing developers to utilize PNM-owned sites to construct facilities, the output from which facilities would be sold to PNM through PPAs. PNM disagreed with the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and filed exceptions contesting the Hearing Examiner’s proposals. On November 15, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order approving PNM’s plan and rejecting the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations. NMIEC filed an appeal with the NM Supreme Court objecting to the fuel allocation methodology. NEE filed a motion to intervene and cross-appeal objecting to the approval of the 50 MW of new solar facilities. PNM filed a motion to intervene. The NM Supreme Court granted the motions to intervene. NMIEC filed a motion for a partial stay and PNM filed a response opposing the request. A briefing schedule has not been determined. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Operating Revenues, CostIn late 2017, PNM entered into three separate 25-year PPAs to purchase renewable energy and RECs to be used by PNM to supply additional renewable power to Facebook, Inc. These PPAs are subject to NMPRC approval and PNM made a filing requesting approval on January 17, 2018 (Note 17). These PPAs include the purchase of the power and RECs from a 50 MW wind project to be operational at December 31, 2018, a 166 MW wind project to be operational in November 2020, and a 50 MW solar project to be operational in December 2021.
PNM will continue to procure renewable resources while balancing the impact to customers’ electricity costs in order to meet New Mexico’s escalating RPS requirements.
Energy Efficiency
Energy efficiency also plays a significant role in helping to keep customers’ electricity costs low while meeting their energy needs. PNM’s and Margin – The table below summarizes the significant changesTNMP’s energy efficiency and load management portfolios continue to total revenues, costachieve robust results. In 2017, annual energy saved as a result of PNM’s portfolio of energy efficiency programs was approximately 78 GWh. This is equivalent to the annual consumption of approximately 11,500 homes in PNM’s service territory. PNM’s load management and margin:
 2015/2014 Change
 
Total
Revenues
 
Cost of
Energy
 

Margin
 (In millions)
Weather normalized customer usage/load$(8.7) $
 $(8.7)
Impacts of weather2.1
 
 2.1
Lower transmission margin, primarily resulting from expiration of long-term contracts(5.4) (0.3) (5.1)
Higher FPPAC billings (Note 17)10.1
 10.1
 
Wholesale contracts, primarily due to the expiration of Gallup contract (Note 17)(6.1) (2.7) (3.4)
Rio Bravo purchase and termination of PPA on July 17, 2014 (Note 9)
 (3.6) 3.6
Renewable energy rider rate increase, partially offset by the purchase of REC’s and renewable power (Note 17)10.0
 3.7
 6.3
Lower market prices of unrealized economic hedges, primarily associated with PVNGS Unit 3(11.2) 0.5
 (11.7)
Refund under FERC tariff for gas transportation agreement and SPS settlement (Note 16)
 (5.4) 5.4
Off-system and economy energy sales (not included in the FPPAC)(11.1) (10.6) (0.5)
Other3.6
 (4.2) 7.8
Net change$(16.7) $(12.5) $(4.2)
annual energy efficiency programs also help lower peak demand requirements. TNMP’s energy efficiency programs in 2017 resulted in energy savings totaling an estimated 21 GWh. This is equivalent to the annual consumption of approximately 2,300 homes in TNMP’s service territory. In April 2016 and again in April 2017, TNMP was recognized by Energy Star for TNMP’s successful energy efficiency efforts. TNMP received the “Partner of the Year Energy Efficiency Delivery Award” for its High-Performance Homes Program.


A-A - 40



Changes in total revenues, cost of energy,Water Conservation and margin are primarily due to:Solid Waste Reduction

PNM continues its efforts to reduce the amount of fresh water used to make electricity (about 20% more efficient than in 2007).  Continued growth in PNM’s fleet of solar and wind energy sources, energy efficiency programs, and innovative uses of gray water and air-cooling technology have contributed to this reduction.  Water usage will continue to decline as PNM substitutes less fresh-water-intensive generation resources to replace SJGS Units 2 and 3 starting in 2018, when water consumption at that plant will be reduced by around 50%.  Focusing on responsible stewardship of New Mexico’s scarce water resources improves PNM’s water-resilience in the face of persistent drought and ever-increasing demands for water to spur the growth of New Mexico’s economy. In addition to the above areas of focus, the Company is working to reduce the amount of solid waste going to landfills through increased recycling and reduction of waste. In 2017, 18 of the Company’s 23 facilities met the solid waste diversion goal of a 60% diversion rate, while recycling at least the same number of waste streams as 2016. The Company expects to continue to do well in this area in the future.

Customer, Stakeholder, and Community Engagement

The Company strives to deliver a superior customer experience. Through outreach, collaboration, and various community-oriented programs, the Company has a demonstrated commitment to build productive relationships with stakeholders, including customers, community partners, regulators, intervenors, legislators, and shareholders. PNM continues to focus its efforts to enhance the customer experience through customer service improvements, including billing and payment options, strategic customer engagement, and improved communications. These efforts are supported by market research to understand the varying needs of customers, identifying and establishing valued services and programs, and proactively communicating and engaging with customers at regional and community levels.
The Company has leveraged a number of communications channels and strategic content to better serve and engage its many stakeholders. PNM’s website, www.pnm.com, provides the details of major regulatory filings, including general rate requests, as well as the background on PNM’s efforts to maintain reliability, keep prices affordable, and protect the environment. In May 2017, a chat function was added to PNM’s website to allow customers options when communicating with its customer service representatives and an online management system was launched to expedite solar interconnection applications from retail customers. The website continues to be a resource for the facts about PNM’s operations and community support efforts, including plans for building a sustainable energy future for New Mexico. In September 2016, PNMR launched a dedicated sustainability portal on its corporate website www.pnmresources.comto provide additional information regarding the Company’s environmental and other sustainability efforts. The site provides the key corporate governance and sustainability information related to the operations of PNM and TNMP. In January 2018, PNM added a Climate Change Report to this portal. The information is presented under four main headings: Environment, Social, Economic, and Governance.
With reliability being the primary role of a transmission and distribution service provider in Texas' deregulated market, TNMP continues to focus on keeping end-users updated about interruptions and to encourage customer preparation when severe weather normalized retail KWh salesis forecasted. In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall in the gulf coast region and TNMP worked diligently to restore power safely and efficiently for affected customers. In addition, PNMR made donations to support relief and restoration efforts in the gulf coast region. TNMP employees who were 1.4% lower in 2015 comparedimpacted by Hurricane Harvey were provided emergency crisis funds supported by the PNM Resources Foundation and other employee donations.
Local relationships and one-on-one communications remain two of the most valuable ways both PNM and TNMP connect with their stakeholders. Both companies maintain long-standing relationships with governmental representatives and key customers to 2014, primarily resulting fromensure that these stakeholders are updated on company investments and initiatives. Key stakeholders also have dedicated Company contacts that support their important service needs.

PNMR has a sluggish economylong tradition of supporting the communities it serves in New Mexico particularlyand Texas. The Company demonstrates its core value of caring through the PNM Resources Foundation, corporate giving, widespread employee volunteerism, and PNM’s low-income assistance programs. In addition to the extensive engagement both PNM and TNMP have with nonprofit organizations in their communities, the PNM Resources Foundation provides more than $1 million in grant funding each year across New Mexico and Texas. These grants help nonprofits collaborate more efficiently and support community projects such as providing software coding camps to underserved youths, funding murals in neighborhoods, and by providing employee matching and volunteer grants. In 2017, “A New Century of Service” grants, which celebrate PNM’s 100th anniversary, funded 62 community projects to build a better future for local communities. In December 2017, PNM announced an additional $1.0 million in donations to the PNM Resources Foundation to support future economic and educational programs in New Mexico.

PNM provides funds to support nonprofits in New Mexico focused in the Albuquerque metropolitan area, which has laggedareas of economic development, education, and the nation in economic recovery
Warmer summer weather and colder winter weather increased revenue in 2015; cooling degree days were 5.7% higher and heating degree days were 2.9% higher in 2015 than in 2014
The June 29, 2014 expirationenvironment. One of PNM’s contract with Gallup, its second largest wholesale generation customer, reduced revenues, cost of energy, and margin; these decreases were partially offset by an increase in off-system sales and lower fuel expenses that would have otherwise been used to serve Gallup
most important outreach programs is tailored for low-income customers. In January 2015,2017, PNM increased the rate charged under the renewable rider to include PNM-owned solar facilities completed in 2014; cost of energy, which reflects the purchase of RECs and renewable power under PPAs increased in 2015, primarily due to the addition of Red Mesa Wind; increases in revenues and margin for PNM’s renewable rider are partially offset by increases in operating expenses and depreciation
In 2015, PNM negotiated new gas transportation agreements with EPNG, resulting in the refund of previously paid gas fixed-transportation costs under the EPNG FERC tariff and establishing new reduced rates through October 31, 2022; this refund decreased the cost of energy and increased margin $4.0 million in 2015; the newly established rates are anticipated to decrease gas transportation costs approximately $0.8 million on an annual basishosted

Operating expenses – Changes in operating expenses are primarily due to:

2015 pre-tax write-off of $165.7 million associated with the BART determination and the ownership restructuring of SJGS discussed in Note 16
Higher plant maintenance costs of $8.9 million primarily at SJGS and PVNGS
Higher employee medical expenses of $4.6 million, primarily due to unfavorable claims experience, including an unusually high number of large dollar claims
Higher costs associated with exploring alternative fuel supply for SJGS of $2.2 million
Higher energy efficiency rider program costs and renewable rider costs of $2.3 million and $0.4 million, which are offset in revenues
Lower rentals of $16.0 million related to renewal of the PVNGS Unit 1 leases (See Note 7) on January 15, 2015
Lower costs of $2.1 million associate with the termination of the EIP lease on April 1, 2015

Depreciation and amortization – The increase in depreciation and amortization expense is primarily due to additions of utility plant in service, including PNM-owned solar PV facilities and the Rio Bravo purchase.

Other income (deductions) – Changes in other income (deductions) are primarily due to:

Higher pre-tax gains, net of impairments, of $5.5 million on available-for-sale securities, reflecting performance of the NDT and the trust for coal mine reclamation, partially offset by higher fees and taxes on the NDT of $2.0 million
Higher income of $4.0 million from refined coal (a third-party pre-treatment process, which began November 2014) at SJGS
Higher equity AFUDC of $5.0 million due to increased levels of construction

Interest charges – Interest charges increased in 2015 compared to 2014 primarily due to higher costs of borrowing for the $250.0 million Senior Unsecured Notes issued on August 11, 2015 Note 6 compared to the debt paid off with the proceeds of that offering, partially offset by higher debt AFUDC.

Income taxes – Income taxes decreased primarily due to the effects of the pretax loss in 2015. The extension of bonus depreciation for income tax purposes reduces anticipated future taxable income, which resulted in impairments of New Mexico net operating loss carryforwards of $3.6 million in 2015 and $2.1 million in 2014. Income tax expense in 2015 also includes $1.8 million due to the reversal of certain deferred tax items related to the BART determination for SJGS. See Note 11. Equity AFUDC is recorded in other income (deductions), but is not included in income for income tax purposes. The impacts of this permanent difference reduced income tax expense by $1.7 million in 2015 compared to 2014.

Operating Results2014 Compared to 2013

Operating Revenues, Cost of Energy and Margin – The table below summarizes the significant changes to total revenues, cost of energy, and margin:

A-A - 41



 2014/2013 Change
 
Total
Revenues
 
Cost of
Energy
 

Margin
  
Weather normalized customer usage/load$(10.9) $
 $(10.9)
Impacts of weather(11.0) 
 (11.0)
Transmission rate increases in August 2013 and May 2014 (Note 17)2.0
 0.9
 1.1
FPPAC billings (Note 17)23.0
 23.0
 
Wholesale contracts, primarily due to the expiration of Gallup contract (Note 17)(1.2) (1.6) 0.4
Rio Bravo purchase and termination of PPA on July 17, 2014 (Note 9)
 (3.3) 3.3
Renewable energy rider rate increase, partially offset by the purchase of REC’s and renewable power (See Note 17)10.2
 3.7
 6.5
Higher market prices of unrealized economic hedges, primarily associated with PVNGS Unit 35.7
 1.1
 4.6
Off-system and economy energy sales (not included in the FPPAC)2.1
 4.7
 (2.6)
Higher unregulated margin5.3
 (1.8) 7.1
Other6.4
 2.2
 4.2
Net change$31.6
 $28.9
 $2.7
44 community events throughout its service territory to connect low-income customers with nonprofit community service providers offering support and help with such needs as water and gas utility bills, food, clothing, medical programs, and services for seniors. Additionally, through its Good Neighbor Fund, PNM provided $0.5 million of assistance with electric bills to 3,804 families in 2017 and offered financial literacy training to further support customers.

ChangesVolunteerism is an important facet of the PNMR culture. In 2017, more than 800 PNM and TNMP employees and retirees contributed approximately 10,800 volunteer hours serving their local communities. Company volunteers also actively participate on nonprofit boards, in total revenues, costeducational, economic, and environmental forums, as well as safety seminars. PNMR employees are, in large part, responsible for the success of energy,the Company’s customer, stakeholder, and margin are primarily due to:community outreach.

Economic Factors
PNM – In 2017 and 2016, PNM experienced decreases in weather-normalized retail load of 0.9% and 0.7%, reflecting a continued sluggish economy in New Mexico. However, economic conditions in Albuquerque appear to have stabilized. The Albuquerque metro area is showing employment growth, but continues to be lower than the national average. Also, some of the previously announced successful economic development efforts, such as the selection of a site within PNM’s New Mexico service territory for a data center by Facebook, Inc., appear to have started their hiring process. There also have been some expansions of existing businesses, particularly in healthcare, education, and professional services. The economy in New Mexico continues to have mixed indicators and experience softness.

TNMP – In 2017 and 2016, TNMP experienced increases in volumetric weather normalized retail KWh sales were 1.7% lowerload of 1.2% and 3.0%. Most of TNMP’s industrial and larger commercial customers are billed based on their peak demand. Demand-based load, excluding retail transmission customers, increased 4.0% and 2.4% in 2014 compared2017 and 2016. The Texas economy continues to 2013,grow, primarily due to New Mexico’s sluggish economy
Milder weather decreased revenueits diverse base, which offsets some of the impacts of Hurricane Harvey. Because TNMP’s service territory is geographically dispersed and was largely on the edges of the storm, a smaller percentage of customers were impacted by the hurricane as compared to some other utilities. The relocation of some national and global corporate headquarters to the Dallas-Fort Worth area has led to growth in 2014; cooling degree days were 7.4% lowercommercial customers and heating degree days were 12.7% loweralso contributes to growth in 2014 thanresidential and small business customers. TNMP continues to add new transmission customers in 2013
The expiration of PNM’s contract with Gallup on June 29, 2014 reduced revenues, cost of energy,its West Texas service territory where oil and margin; these decreases were partially offset by an increase in off-system sales and lower fuel expenses that would have otherwise been usedgas production continues to serve Gallup; a new wholesale contract with the Jicarilla Apache Nation increased revenues and margin in 2014 by $1.0 million
In January 2014, PNM increased the rate charged under the renewable rider to include PNM-owned solar facilities completed in 2013; cost of energy reflects increased purchase of RECs and renewable power under PPAs; increases in revenues and margin for PNM’s renewable rider are partially offset by increases in operating expenses and depreciation
Higher market prices combined with higher available generation associated with PVNGS Unit 3 increased unregulated revenues by $5.3 million in 2014; gas imbalance settlements in 2014, which did not occur in 2013, lowered cost of energy $2.1 million

Operating expenses – Changes in operating expenses are primarily due to:grow.

PNM recorded a $10.5Results of Operations

Net earnings attributable to PNMR were $79.9 million, regulatory disallowance ofor $1.00 per diluted share in the FPPAC under-collected balanceyear ended December 31, 2017 compared to $116.8 million, or $1.46 per diluted share in 2013, which did not occur2016. Among other things, earnings in 2014 (See Note 17)
PNM made contributions of $3.3 million in 20132017 benefited from additional revenues due to the rate increase approved in the NM 2015 Rate Case at PNM, Resources Foundationhigher revenues under FERC formula transmission rates and Good Neighbor Fund, which did not occur in 2014
Lower labornew transmission customers at PNM, rate increases and employee benefitincreased load at TNMP, lower plant maintenance costs of $2.4 million and $0.6 million
Higher capitalization of administrative and general expenses, which decreases operating expenses, of $2.7 millionat PNM, higher gains on available-for-sale securities, higher AFUDC due to higher capital spending in 2014.
Increase plant maintenance costslevels of $6.1 million, primarilyconstruction expenditures at Four Corners, PVNGS,PNM, and PNM’s natural gas plants
Higher energy efficiency rider program costsexcess tax benefits related to stock compensation recognized under a new accounting standard (Note 13). These increases were more than offset by decreased load at PNM, milder weather at PNM and higher renewable rider costs of $3.2 millionTNMP, lower revenue from NEC at PNM, greater regulatory disallowances at PNM, increased depreciation and $0.4 million, which are offset in revenue.
Higher property taxes of $2.4 million due to increased plant in service at PNM and TNMP and higher assessed values

Depreciationdepreciation rates approved in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case, and amortization – Depreciation and amortization expense increased primarily due to additions to utility plant in service, including PNM-owned solar PV facilities and the Rio Bravo purchase.

Other income (deductions) – Other income (deductions) decreased primarily due to lower interest income on the PVNGS lessor notes reflecting lower outstanding balances.Westmoreland Loan and from the IRS, as well as the additional income taxes resulting from the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate (Note 11) and increased pre-tax earnings. Additional information on factors impacting results of operation for each segment is discussed under Results of Operations below.

Interest charges – Interest charges increased primarily due to interest costs associated with the construction of PNM-owned solar PV facilities.

Income taxes – Income taxes increased primarily due to the effects of higher pretax income in 2014. The Company also settled an IRS examination in 2014, which resulted in PNM recording an additional income tax expense of $1.1 million. An income tax benefit of $1.3 million reflected in the Corporate and Other segment offsets this amount.


A- 42


TNMP
The table below summarizes the operating results for TNMP:
 Year Ended December 31, Change
 2015 2014 2013 2015/2014 2014/2013
 (In millions)
Electric operating revenues$307.9
 $287.9
 $271.6
 $20.0
 $16.3
Cost of energy73.5
 67.9
 57.6
 5.6
 10.3
Margin234.4
 220.0
 214.0
 14.4
 6.0
Operating expenses88.1
 84.4
 91.6
 3.7
 (7.2)
Depreciation and amortization56.3
 50.1
 50.2
 6.2
 (0.1)
Operating income90.0
 85.6
 72.2
 4.4
 13.4
Other income (deductions)3.7
 2.1
 1.9
 1.6
 0.2
Interest charges(27.7) (27.4) (27.4) (0.3) 
Segment earnings before income taxes66.1
 60.3
 46.7
 5.8
 13.6
Income (taxes)(24.1) (22.5) (17.6) (1.6) (4.9)
Segment earnings$42.0
 $37.8
 $29.1
 $4.2
 $8.7


The following table shows TNMP operating revenues by retail tariff consumer class and average number of consumers:
 Year Ended December 31, Change
 2015 2014 2013 2015/2014 2014/2013
 (In millions, except customers)
Residential$120.8
 $114.8
 $111.3
 $6.0
 $3.5
Commercial103.0
 99.7
 95.1
 3.3
 4.6
Industrial16.3
 15.0
 13.1
 1.3
 1.9
Other67.8
 58.4
 52.1
 9.4
 6.3
 $307.9
 $287.9
 $271.6
 $20.0
 $16.3
Average consumers (thousands) (1)
241.6
 238.2
 235.1
 3.4
 3.1
(1)
TNMP provides transmission and distribution services to REPs that provide electric service to customers in TNMP’s service territories. The number of consumers above represents the customers of these REPs. Under TECA, consumers in Texas have the ability to choose any REP to provide energy.
The following table shows TNMP GWh sales by retail tariff consumer class:
 Year Ended December 31, Change
 2015 
  2014 (1)
 
  2013 (1)
 2015/2014 2014/2013
 (Gigawatt hours)
Residential2,912.0
 2,802.8
 2,796.7
 109.2
 6.1
Commercial2,654.1
 2,583.7
 2,472.9
 70.4
 110.8
Industrial2,804.9
 2,708.2
 2,576.8
 96.7
 131.4
Other101.0
 102.1
 104.5
 (1.1) (2.4)
 8,472.0
 8,196.7
 7,950.9
 275.2
 245.9

(1)
The 2014 and 2013 GWh amounts reflect a reclassification of 18.9 GWh and 21.7 GWh from industrial to commercial to be consistent with the current year presentation.


A- 43


Operating results2015 compared to 2014

Operating Revenues, Cost of Energy and Margin – The table below summarizes the significant changes to total revenues, cost of energy, and margin:
 2015/2014 Change
 
Total
Revenues
 
Cost of
Energy
 

Margin
 (In millions)
Transmission cost of service rate increases in March and September of 2015 and 2014 (See Note 17)$8.0
 $
 $8.0
Weather normalized customer usage/load2.0
 
 2.0
Customer growth of 1.5% in 20151.0
 
 1.0
Impacts of weather(0.2) 
 (0.2)
Recovery of third-party transmission costs5.6
 5.6
 
Higher AMS surcharge revenues due to increased AMS deployment which are offset in O&M (See Note 17)4.9
 
 4.9
Lower energy efficiency incentive in 2015 (See Note 17)(0.8) 
 (0.8)
Other(0.5) 
 (0.5)
Net change$20.0
 $5.6
 $14.4

Changes in total revenues, cost of energy, and margin are primarily due to:

The Texas economy has fared better than the national average in job growth and unemployment growth, increasing weather normalized retail KWh sales 2.6% in 2015; the weather normalized load impacts are primarily related to the residential class
Weather had minimal impacts on margin as heating degree days were 12.2% lower and cooling degree days were 6.4% higher than in 2014; due to the climate in TNMP’s service territories, variances in cooling degree days have a much larger impact than variances in heating degree days
Changes in costs charged by third-party transmission providers are deferred and recovered through a transmission cost recovery factor; higher third party transmission costs of energy resulted in, and are offset by, TNMP rate increases for the recovery of these costs

Operating expenses – Changes in operating expenses are primarily due to:

Increased employee medical expenses of $2.4 million, due primarily to unfavorable claims experience, including an unusually high number of large dollar claims
Increased property taxes of $1.4 million, due primarily to increases in utility plant in service and higher assessed values
Higher operating expenses of $1.1 million associated with the AMS deployment, which are recovered through the AMS surcharge
Higher capitalization of administrative and general expenses of $0.9 million decreased operating expenses due to the mix of transmission and distribution construction expenditures

Depreciation and amortization – Depreciation and amortization expense increased in 2015 primarily due to $2.9 million from greater AMS deployment, $2.5 million from other increases in utility plant in service, and $0.8 million from increased amortization of the CTC regulatory asset.

Other income (deductions) – Other income (deductions) increased in 2015 due primarily to an increase in contributions in aid of construction.

Interest charges – Interest charges increased in 2015 primarily due to the issuance of $80.0 million of long-term debt on June 27, 2014, partially offset by the maturity of $50.0 million of long-term debt on June 30, 2014.

Income taxes – Income taxes increased in 2015 primarily due to higher pretax income in 2015.


A- 44


Operating results2014 compared to 2013

Operating Revenues, Cost of Energy and Margin – The table below summarizes the significant changes to total revenues, cost of energy, and margin:
 2014/2013 Change
 
Total
Revenues
 
Cost of
Energy
 

Margin
  
Transmission cost of service rate increases in March and September of 2014 and 2013 (See Note 17)$6.3
 $
 $6.3
Weather normalized customer usage/load0.5
 
 0.5
Customer growth of 1.3% in 20141.7
 
 1.7
Impacts of weather(2.0) 
 (2.0)
Recovery of third-party transmission costs10.3
 10.3
 
Higher AMS surcharge revenues due to increased AMS deployment (See Note 17)4.0
 
 4.0
Lower Hurricane Ike surcharge revenues due to termination of surcharge upon full recovery of associated costs in November 2013(4.8) 
 (4.8)
Higher energy efficiency incentive in 2014 (See Note 17)0.8
 
 0.8
Other(0.5) 
 (0.5)
Net change$16.3
 $10.3
 $6.0

Changes in total revenues, cost of energy, and margin are primarily due to:

A strong Texas economy helped increase weather normalized retail KWh sales 3.2% in 2014, primarily related to the commercial class
Milder weather in the summer decreased revenues as cooling degree days were 2.2% lower and heating degree days were 2.0% higher than in 2014
Higher costs charged by third-party transmission providers, which are deferred and recovered through a transmission cost recovery factor
Changes in AMS and Hurricane Ike surcharge revenues are offset in operating expenses and depreciation and amortization

Operating expenses – Changes in operating expenses are primarily due to:

Higher capitalization of administrative and general expenses, which decreases operating expenses, of $2.9 million due higher capital spending in 2014
Lower employee healthcare costs of $2.1 million primarily due to lower claims experience
2013 write-off of $0.5 million in costs incurred in an effort to securitize the remaining CTC costs
2013 contributions to the PNM Resources Foundation of $0.7 million
Lower energy efficiency program expenses of $0.3 million and lower rate case expense amortization of $0.7 million

Depreciation and amortization – Depreciation and amortization expense decreased primarily due to $4.7 million lower amortization of the Hurricane Ike regulatory asset, which was offset by higher depreciation expense of $1.6 million due to an increase in utility plant in service, $2.2 million increase from greater AMS deployment, and $0.7 million from higher CTC amortization.

Other income (deductions) – Other income (deductions) increased primarily due to an increase in contributions in aid of construction.

Income taxes – Income taxes increased primarily to higher pretax income in 2014.


A- 45


Corporate and Other

The Corporate and Other segment includes PNMR holding company activities, primarily related to corporate level debt and the activities of PNMR Services Company. PNMR Services Company provides corporate services through shared services agreements to PNMR and all of PNMR’s business units, including PNM and TNMP. These services are charged and billed at cost on a monthly basis to the business units. The activities of PNMR Development, NM Capital, and NMRD are also included in Corporate and Other.


A - 5


SOURCES OF POWER
PNM
Generation Capacity

As of January 1, 2018, the total net generation capacity of facilities owned or leased by PNM was 2,102 MW. PNM also obtains power under long-term PPAs for the power produced by Valencia, New Mexico Wind, Red Mesa Wind, the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility, and the NMRD-owned solar facility.

PNM’s capacity in electric generating facilities, which are owned, leased, or under PPAs, in commercial service as of January 1, 2018 is:
Generation
Capacity
TypeNameLocation(MW)
CoalSJGSWaterflow, New Mexico562
CoalFour CornersFruitland, New Mexico200
GasReeves StationAlbuquerque, New Mexico154
GasAfton (combined cycle)La Mesa, New Mexico230
GasLordsburgLordsburg, New Mexico80
GasLuna (combined cycle)Deming, New Mexico189
Gas/OilRio BravoAlbuquerque, New Mexico138
GasValenciaBelen, New Mexico158
GasLa LuzBelen, New Mexico40
NuclearPVNGSWintersburg, Arizona402
SolarPNM-owned solarFifteen sites in New Mexico107
SolarNMRD-owned solarLos Lunas, New Mexico10
WindNew Mexico WindHouse, New Mexico204
WindRed Mesa WindSeboyeta, New Mexico102
GeothermalLightning Dock GeothermalLordsburg, New Mexico4
2,580

Fossil‑Fueled Plants

SJGS is operated by PNM and, until December 2017, consisted of four units. As discussed in Note 16, SJGS Units 2 and 3 were retired in December 2017 and the ownership interests in SJGS Unit 4 were restructured as of December 31, 2017. The table below presents the rated capacities and ownership interests of each participant in each unit of SJGS before and after these events:
 Unit MW Capacity and Ownership Interests
 Prior to Restructuring After Restructuring
 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 1 Unit 4
Capacity (MW)340
 340
 497
 507
 340
 507
            
PNM (1)
50.000% 50.000% 50.000% 38.457% 50.000% 77.297%
Tucson50.000
 50.000
 
 
 50.000
 
SCPPA
 
 41.800
 
 
 
Tri-State
 
 8.200
 
 
 
MSR
 
 
 28.800
 
 
Anaheim
 
 
 10.040
 
 
Farmington
 
 
 8.475
 
 8.475
Los Alamos
 
 
 7.200
 
 7.200
UAMPS
 
 
 7.028
 
 7.028
Total100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000% 100.000%

(1) After restructuring includes a 12.8% interest held as a merchant plant .

A - 6



Four Corners Units 4 and 5 are 13% owned by PNM. These units are jointly owned with APS, an APS affiliate, SRP, and Tucson and are operated by APS. PNM had no ownership interest in Four Corners Units 1, 2, or 3, which were shut down by APS on December 30, 2013. The Four Corners plant site is leased from the Navajo Nation and is also subject to an easement from the federal government. APS, on behalf of the Four Corners participants, negotiated amendments to an existing facility lease with the Navajo Nation, which extends the Four Corners leasehold interest from 2016 to 2041. The Navajo Nation approved these amendments in March 2011. The effectiveness of the amendments also required the approval of the DOI, as did a related federal rights-of-way grant, which was received in July 2015. An affiliate of APS acquired the 7% interest formerly owned by EPE on July 7, 2016. NTEC, an entity owned by the Navajo Nation, has the option to purchase the 7% interest. NTEC provided notice of its intent to exercise the option, but has not yet acquired the 7% interest. APS and NTEC are currently in discussions as to the future of the option transaction. See Note 16 for additional information about Four Corners.

PNM owns 100% of Reeves, Afton, Rio Bravo, Lordsburg, and La Luz and one-third of Luna. The remaining interests in Luna are owned equally by Tucson and Samchully Power & Utilities 1, LLC. PNM is entitled to the entire output of Valencia under a PPA. Reeves, Lordsburg, Rio Bravo, La Luz, and Valencia are used primarily for peaking power and transmission support. As discussed in Note 9, Valencia is a variable interest entity and is consolidated by PNM as required by GAAP.

Nuclear Plant

PNM is participating in the three units of PVNGS, also known as the Arizona Nuclear Power Project, with APS (the operating agent), SRP, EPE, SCE, SCPPA, and the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles. PNM is entitled to 10.2%, including portions that are leased to PNM, of the power and energy generated by PVNGS. See Note 7 for additional information concerning the PVNGS leases, including the renewal of the four PVNGS Unit 1 leases and one of the PVNGS Unit 2 leases and the purchase of the assets underlying the other three Unit 2 leases. Currently, PNM has ownership interests of 2.3% in Unit 1, 9.4% in Unit 2, and 10.2% in Unit 3 and has leasehold interests of 7.9% in Unit 1 and 0.8% in Unit 2. The lease payments for the leased portions of PVNGS are recovered through retail rates approved by the NMPRC. See Note 16 for information on other PVNGS matters, including the NMPRC’s approval for PNM to include PVNGS Unit 3 as a jurisdictional resource to serve New Mexico retail customers beginning in 2018 and Note 17 for information concerning the NMPRC’s treatment of the purchased assets and extended leases in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case.

Solar

PNM completed several utility-owned solar PV facilities between 2011 and 2015. In addition, PNM completed its solar-storage demonstration project, which has a generation capacity of 0.5 MW. At December 31, 2017, PNM owns a total of 107 MW of solar facilities. PNMR Development began construction of 30 MW of new solar capacity in 2017. In December 2017, interest in that 30 MW of solar capacity was transferred to NMRD, which is 50% owned by PNMR Development. As discussed in Note 17, PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan includes the addition of 50 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities to be constructed in 2018 and 2019. In January 2018, the United States imposed a 30% tariff on certain imported solar panels. PNM is currently unable to predict the impact, if any, of this tariff on these projects. The NMPRC has approved a voluntary tariff that allows PNM retail customers to buy renewable electricity for a small monthly premium. Power from 1.5 MW of PNM’s solar capacity is used to service load under the voluntary tariff.

Plant Operating Statistics

Equivalent availability of PNM’s major base-load generating stations was:
Plant Operator 2017 2016 2015
SJGS PNM 84.1% 76.5% 67.4%
Four Corners APS 50.6% 62.0% 77.8%
PVNGS APS 91.9% 91.4% 94.2%

Joint Projects

SJGS, PVNGS, Four Corners, and Luna are joint projects each owned or leased by several different entities. Some participants in the joint projects are investor-owned entities, while others are privately, municipally, or co-operatively owned. Furthermore, participants in SJGS have varying percentage interests in different generating units within the project. The primary operating or participation agreements for the joint projects expire in July 2022 for SJGS, July 2041 for Four Corners, December 2046 for Luna, and November 2047 for PVNGS. SJGS and Four Corners are coal-fired generating plants that obtain their coal

A - 7


requirements from mines near the plants. An agreement for coal supply for SJGS, which expires on June 30, 2022, became effective on January 31, 2016. At that same time, an agreement to restructure the ownership in SJGS became effective. The restructuring agreement provided for certain participants in SJGS to exit ownership at December 31, 2017, by which time SJGS Units 2 and 3 were required to be permanently shut down. See Note 16 for a discussion of the restructuring of SJGS ownership. In December 2013, a coal supply arrangement for Four Corners that runs through July 6, 2031 was executed. As described above, Four Corners is situated on land under a lease from the Navajo Nation. Portions of PNM’s interests in PVNGS Units 1 and 2 are held under leases. See Nuclear Plant above and Note 7 regarding PNM’s actions related to these leases.

It is possible that other participants in the joint projects have circumstances and objectives that have changed from those existing at the time of becoming participants. The status of these joint projects is further complicated by the uncertainty surrounding the form of potential legislation and/or regulation of GHG, other air emissions, and CCBs, as well as the impacts of the costs of compliance and operational viability of all or certain units within the joint projects. It is unclear how these factors will enter into discussion and negotiations concerning the status of the joint projects as the expiration of basic operational agreements approaches.

PNM’s 2017 IRP, which was filed on July 3, 2017, indicates that it would be cost beneficial to PNM’s customers for PNM to retire its SJGS capacity in 2022 and for PNM to exit its ownership interest in Four Corners in 2031. See additional discussion of PNM’s 2017 IRP and PNM’s regulatory recovery of certain investments in Four Corners under the NM 2016 Rate Case, in Note 17. PNM can provide no assurance that its participation in the joint projects will continue in the manner that currently exists.

PPAs

In addition to generating its own power, PNM purchases power under long-term PPAs. PNM also purchases power in the forward, day-ahead, and real-time markets.

In 2002, PNM entered into a 25-year agreement to purchase all of the power and RECs generated by New Mexico Wind. PNM began receiving power from the project in June 2003. FPL owns and operates New Mexico Wind, which currently consists of 136 wind-powered turbines having an aggregate capacity of 204 MW on a site in eastern New Mexico. PNM also has a 20-year agreement to purchase energy and RECs from the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility built near Lordsburg, New Mexico. The current capacity of the facility is 4 MW. PNM’s 2018 renewable plan filing, which was approved by the NMPRC on November 15, 2017, included requests to procure an additional 80 GWh in 2019 and 105 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of New Mexico Wind and an additional 55 GWh in 2019 and 77 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal. The PPAs now expire in 2044 for New Mexico Wind and 2042 for Lightning Dock Geothermal.

In June 2013, PNM entered into a 20-year PPA with Red Mesa Wind, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, to purchase all of the power and RECs produced by Red Mesa Wind beginning on January 1, 2015. Red Mesa Wind, LLC owns and operates the facility, which consists of 64 wind-powered turbines having an aggregate capacity of 102 MW on a site west of Albuquerque.

PNM and Tri-State have a hazard sharing agreement, which expires on May 31, 2022. Under this agreement, each party sells the other party 100 MW of capacity and energy from a designated generation resource on a unit contingent basis, subject to certain performance guarantees.  Both the purchases and sales are made at the same market index price.  This agreement serves to reduce the magnitude of each party’s single largest generating hazard and assists in enhancing the reliability and efficiency of their respective operations. See Note 17 for details related to purchases and sales. Since PNM purchases and sells approximately the same amount of energy under the hazard sharing agreement, it is not included as a capacity resource in the above table.

As discussed in Note 1, PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners created NMRD on September 22, 2017 to pursue the acquisition, development, and ownership of renewable energy generation projects primarily in the State of New Mexico. PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners each have a 50% ownership interest in NMRD, a limited liability company. In December 2017, PNMR Development made a contribution to NMRD of its interest in three 10 MW solar facilities and assigned its interests in several agreements related to those facilities to NMRD. AEP OnSite Partners made a cash contribution to NMRD equal to 50% of the value of the 30 MW solar capacity, which cash was then distributed from NMRD to PNMR Development.  Power from the 30 MWs of solar capacity will be sold to PNM under 25-year PPAs to supply renewable energy to a new data center being constructed in PNM’s service territory by Facebook, Inc. (Note 17). At January 1, 2018, the first 10 MW of solar capacity was in commercial operation and the remaining capacity is expected to begin commercial operation by mid-2018.

In late 2017, PNM entered into three separate 25-year PPAs to purchase renewable energy and RECs to be used by PNM to supply additional renewable power to Facebook, Inc. These PPAs are subject to NMPRC approval and PNM made a filing requesting approval on January 17, 2018 (Note 17). These PPAs include the purchase of the power and RECs from:

A - 8



Casa Mesa Wind, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC., which is expected to be located near House, New Mexico, have a total capacity of 50 MW, and be operational at December 31, 2018
A 166 MW portion of the La Joya Wind Project, owned by Avangrid Renewables, LLC, which is expected to be located near Estancia, New Mexico and be operational in November 2020
Route 66 Solar Energy Center, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC., which is expected to be located west of Albuquerque, New Mexico, have a total capacity of 50 MW, and be operational in December 2021

A summary of purchased power, excluding Valencia, is as follows:
 Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
Purchased under long-term PPAs     
MWh1,574,716
 1,211,852
 599,562
Cost per MWh$29.02
 $28.26
 $22.18
Other purchased power     
Total MWh445,464
 502,893
 729,895
Cost per MWh$31.74
 $27.78
 $28.94
TNMP
TNMP provides only transmission and distribution services and does not sell power.

FUEL AND WATER SUPPLY
PNM
The percentages (on the basis of KWh) of PNM’s generation of electricity, including Valencia, fueled by coal, nuclear fuel, and gas and oil, and the average costs to PNM of those fuels per MMBTU were as follows:
 Coal Nuclear Gas and Oil
 
Percent of
Generation
 
Average
Cost
 
Percent of
Generation
 
Average
Cost
 
Percent of
Generation
 
Average
Cost
201756.5% $2.16
 31.9% $0.64
 9.2% $3.02
201654.1% $2.34
 31.6% $0.71
 11.8% $2.80
201553.3% $2.88
 32.6% $0.70
 12.6% $2.91

In 2017, 2016, and 2015, 2.4%, 2.5%, and 1.5% of PNM’s generation was from utility-owned solar, which has no fuel cost. In December 2017, SJGS Units 2 and 3 were retired and PNM assumed a greater interest in SJGS Unit 4, which results in a lower percentage of PNM’s electric generation capacity being fueled by coal. The generation mix for 2018 is expected to be 44.3% coal, 29.4% nuclear, 23.8% gas and oil, and 2.5% utility-owned solar. Due to locally available natural gas and oil supplies, the utilization of locally available coal deposits, and the generally adequate supply of nuclear fuel, PNM believes that adequate sources of fuel are available for its generating stations into the foreseeable future. See Sources of Power – PNM – PPAs for information concerning the cost of purchased power. PNM recovers substantially all of it fuel and purchased power costs through the FPPAC.

Coal

A coal supply contract for SJGS, which expires on June 30, 2022, became effective on January 31, 2016. Substantially all of the benefits of lower coal pricing under the new contract are being passed through to PNM’s customers under the FPPAC. Coal supply has not been arranged for periods after the existing contract expires. PNM believes there is adequate availability of coal resources to continue to operate SJGS. In 2018 and before entering into a binding agreement for post-2022 coal supply for SJGS, PNM must file its position in a NMPRC case to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after mid-2022.


A - 9


In late December 2013, a fifteen-year coal supply contract for Four Corners, which began in July 2016, was executed. The average coal price per ton under the new contract was approximately 51% higher in the twelve months ended June 30, 2017 than in the twelve months ended June 30, 2016, excluding disputed amounts discussed in Note 16. The contract provides for pricing adjustments over its term based on economic indices.

See Note 16 for additional information about PNM’s coal supply. As discussed in Note 17, PNM’s 2017 IRP indicated retiring PNM’s remaining interest in SJGS in 2022 after the expiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements and exiting ownership in Four Corners after the end of its current coal supply agreement in 2031 would provide long-term cost savings to PNM’s customers.
Natural Gas
The natural gas used as fuel for the electric generating plants is procured on the open market and delivered by third party transportation providers. The supply of natural gas can be subject to disruptions due to extreme weather events and/or pipeline or facility outages. PNM has contracted for firm gas transmission capacity to minimize the potential for disruptions due to extreme weather events. Certain of PNM’s natural gas plants are generally used as peaking resources that are highly relied upon during periods of extreme weather, which also may be the times natural gas has the highest demand from other users. It is likely PNM’s reliance on its natural gas generating resources will increase with the December 2017 retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3, which will increase PNM’s exposure to fluctuations in natural gas prices although substantially all gas costs are recovered through the FPPAC.
Nuclear Fuel and Waste
PNM is one of several participants in PVNGS. The PVNGS participants are continually identifying their future nuclear fuel resource needs and negotiating arrangements to fill those needs. The PVNG participants have contracted for 100% of PVNGS’s requirements for uranium concentrates through 2023 and 50% of its requirements for 2024 and 2025. Additionally, PVNGS has contracts in various phases of negotiation to procure an additional 1.5 years supply of uranium concentrates, which would result in 100% of uranium concentrate requirements being assured through 2026. The PVNGS participants have also contracted for 100% of the requirements for conversion services through 2021 and 46% of its requirements for 2022 through 2025. Additional contracts are being negotiated for 4.3 years supply of conversion services, which would result in 100% of those services being assured through 2027. The PVNGS participants have also contracted for 100% of the requirements for enrichment services through 2020 and 20% of its enrichment services for 2021 through 2026. Additionally, PVNGS has several contracts in negotiation to procure an additional 4.3 years supply of enrichment services, which would result in 100% of those services being assured through 2021, 90% in 2022 and 80% in 2023 through 2026. All of PVNGS’s fuel assembly fabrication services are contracted through 2024.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required the DOE to begin to accept, transport, and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste generated by the nation’s nuclear power plants by 1998. The DOE’s obligations are reflected in a contract with each nuclear power plant. The DOE failed to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel by 1998. APS (on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS participants) pursued legal actions for which settlements were reached. See Note 16 for information concerning these actions.
The DOE had planned to meet its disposal obligations by designing, licensing, constructing, and operating a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In March 2010, the DOE filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice its Yucca Mountain construction authorization application that was pending before the NRC. Several interested parties have intervened in the NRC proceeding. Additionally, a number of interested parties have filed a variety of lawsuits in different jurisdictions around the country challenging the DOE’s authority to withdraw the Yucca Mountain construction authorization application. None of these lawsuits has been conclusively decided by the courts. However, in August 2013, the DC Circuit ordered the NRC to resume its review of the application with available appropriated funds.

On October 16, 2014, the NRC issued Volume 3 of the safety evaluation report developed as part of the Yucca Mountain construction authorization application. This volume addresses repository safety after permanent closure, and its issuance is a key milestone in the Yucca Mountain licensing process. Volume 3 contains the NRC staff’s finding that the DOE’s repository design meets the requirements that apply after the repository is permanently closed, including but not limited to the post-closure performance objectives in NRC’s regulations. On December 18, 2014, the NRC issued Volume 4 of the safety evaluation report developed as part of the Yucca Mountain construction authorization application. This volume covers administrative and programmatic requirements for the repository and documents the staff’s evaluation of whether the DOE’s research and development and performance confirmation programs, as well as other administrative controls and systems, meet applicable NRC requirements. Volume 4 contains the staff’s finding that most administrative and programmatic requirements in NRC regulations are met, except

A - 10


for certain requirements relating to ownership of land and water rights. Publication of Volumes 3 and 4 does not signal whether or when the NRC might authorize construction of the repository.
All spent nuclear fuel from PVNGS is being stored on-site. PVNGS has sufficient capacity at its on-site ISFSI to store all of the nuclear fuel that will be irradiated during the initial operating license periods, which end in November 2027. Additionally, PVNGS has sufficient capacity at its on-site ISFSI to store a portion of the fuel that will be irradiated during the extended license periods, which end in November 2047. If uncertainties regarding the United States government’s obligation to accept and store spent fuel are not favorably resolved, the PVNGS participants will evaluate alternative storage solutions. These may obviate the need to expand the ISFSI to accommodate all of the fuel that will be irradiated during the extended license periods.
Water Supply

See Note 16 for information about PNM’s water supply.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Electric utilities are subject to stringent laws and regulations for protection of the environment by local, state, federal, and tribal authorities. In addition, PVNGS is subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC, which has the authority to issue permits and licenses and to regulate nuclear facilities in order to protect the health and safety of the public from radioactive hazards and to conduct environmental reviews. The liabilities under these laws and regulations can be material. In some instances, liabilities may be imposed without regard to fault, or may be imposed for past acts, whether or not such acts were lawful at the time they occurred. The construction expenditure projection (Note 14) includes the environmental upgrades at Four Corners discussed in Note 16 of $7.9 million in 2018. See MD&A – Other Issues Facing the Company – Climate Change Issues for information on GHG. In addition, Note 16 contains information related to the following matters, incorporated in this item by reference:

PVNGS Decommissioning Funding
Nuclear Spent Fuel and Waste Disposal
Environmental Matters under the caption “The Clean Air Act”
WEG v. OSM NEPA Lawsuit
Navajo Nation Environmental Issues
Cooling Water Intake Structures
Effluent Limitation Guidelines
Santa Fe Generating Station
Environmental Matters under the caption “Coal Combustion Byproducts Waste Disposal”
Environmental Matters under the caption “Coal Supply”

COMPETITION

Regulated utilities are generally not subject to competition from other utilities in areas that are under the jurisdiction of state regulatory commissions. In New Mexico, PNM does not have direct competition for services provided to its retail electric customers. In Texas, TNMP is not currently in any direct retail competition with any other regulated electric utility. However, PNM and TNMP are subject to customer conservation and energy efficiency activities, as well as initiatives to utilize alternative energy sources, including self-generation, or otherwise bypass the PNM and TNMP systems.

PNM is subject to varying degrees of competition in certain territories adjacent to or within the areas it serves. This competition comes from other utilities in its region as well as rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities.  PNM is involved in the generation and sale of electricity into the wholesale market although PNM has decided to stop pursuing wholesale generation contracts.  PNM is subject to competition from regional utilities and merchant power suppliers with similar opportunities to generate and sell energy at market-based prices and larger trading entities that do not own or operate generating assets.


A - 11


EMPLOYEES
The following table sets forth the number of employees of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP as of December 31, 2017:
 PNMR PNM TNMP
Corporate (1)
396
 
 
PNM938
 938
 
TNMP365
 
 365
   Total1,699
 938
 365

(1)Represents employees of PNMR Services Company.
As of December 31, 2017, PNM had 495 employees in its power plant and operations areas that are currently covered by a collective bargaining agreement with the IBEW Local 611 that is in effect through April 30, 2020. As of December 31, 2017, TNMP had 198 employees represented by IBEW Local 66 covered by a collective bargaining agreement that is in effect through August 31, 2019. The wages and benefits for PNM and TNMP employees who are members of the IBEW are typically included in the rates charged to electric customers and consumers, subject to approval of the NMPRC and PUCT.

DISCLOSURE REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

Statements made in this filing that relate to future events or PNMR’s, PNM’s, or TNMP’s expectations, projections, estimates, intentions, goals, targets, and strategies are made pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Readers are cautioned that all forward-looking statements are based upon current expectations and estimates. PNMR, PNM, and TNMP assume no obligation to update this information.
Because actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements, PNMR, PNM, and TNMP caution readers not to place undue reliance on these statements. PNMR’s, PNM’s, and TNMP’s business, financial condition, cash flows, and operating results are influenced by many factors, which are often beyond their control, that can cause actual results to differ from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. These factors include:

The ability of PNM and TNMP to recover costs and earn allowed returns in regulated jurisdictions, including the impacts of the NMPRC orders in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and NM 2016 Rate Case, appeals of those orders, the deferral of the issue of PNM’s prudence of continuation of participation in Four Corners to PNM’s next rate case and recovery of PNM’s investments in that plant, and any actions resulting from PNM’s 2017 IRP and the impact on service levels for PNM customers if the ultimate outcomes do not provide for the recovery of costs of operating and capital expenditures, as well as other impacts of federal or state regulatory and judicial actions
The ability of the Company to successfully forecast and manage its operating and capital expenditures, including aligning expenditures with the revenue levels resulting from the ultimate outcomes in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and NM 2016 Rate Case, including appeals, and TNMP’s rate case anticipated to be filed in May 2018 and supporting forecasts utilized in future test year rate proceedings
The impacts on the electricity usage of customers and consumers due to performance of state, regional, and national economies, energy efficiency measures, weather, seasonality, alternative sources of power, and other changes in supply and demand
Uncertainty surrounding the status of PNM’s participation in jointly-owned generation projects, including the 2022 scheduled expiration of the operational and fuel supply agreements for SJGS, as well as the 2018 required NMPRC filing to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers beyond mid-2022 and any actions resulting from PNM’s 2017 IRP, including regulatory recovery of undepreciated investments in the event the NMPRC orders generating facilities to be retired before currently estimated
Uncertainty regarding the requirements and related costs of decommissioning power plants and reclamation of coal mines supplying certain power plants, as well as the ability to recover those costs from customers, including the potential impacts of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case and NM 2016 Rate Case, appeals of those orders, and PNM’s 2017 IRP
Uncertainty regarding what actions PNM may take with respect to the generating capacity in PVNGS Units 1 and 2, which is under lease, at the expiration of the lease terms in 2023 and 2024, as well as the related treatment of the NMPRC for ratemaking purposes
The Company’s ability to access the financial markets in order to provide financing to repay or refinance debt as it comes due, as well as for ongoing operations and construction expenditures, including disruptions in the capital or credit markets, actions by ratings agencies, and fluctuations in interest rates, including any negative impacts that could result from the ultimate outcome in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and NM 2016 Rate Case, including appeals

A - 12


The potential unavailability of cash from PNMR’s subsidiaries due to regulatory, statutory, or contractual restrictions or subsidiary earnings or cash flows
State and federal regulation or legislation relating to environmental matters, the resultant costs of compliance, and other impacts on the operations and economic viability of PNM’s generating plants
State and federal regulatory, legislative, executive, and judicial decisions and actions on ratemaking, tax, including the impacts and related uncertainties of tax reform enacted in 2017, and other matters
Risks related to climate change, including potential financial risks resulting from climate change litigation and legislative and regulatory efforts to limit GHG
Uncertainty surrounding counterparty credit risk, including financial support provided to facilitate the coal supply and ownership restructuring at SJGS
The performance of generating units, transmission systems, and distribution systems, which could be negatively affected by operational issues, fuel quality, unplanned outages, extreme weather conditions, terrorism, cybersecurity breaches, and other catastrophic events
Employee workforce factors, including cost control efforts and issues arising out of collective bargaining agreements and labor negotiations with union employees
Variability of prices and volatility and liquidity in the wholesale power and natural gas markets
Changes in price and availability of fuel and water supplies, including the ability of the mines supplying coal to PNM’s coal-fired generating units and the companies involved in supplying nuclear fuel to provide adequate quantities of fuel
The risks associated with completion of generation, transmission, distribution, and other projects
Regulatory, financial, and operational risks inherent in the operation of nuclear facilities, including spent fuel disposal uncertainties
The risk that FERC rulemakings or lack of additional capacity during peak hours may negatively impact the operation of PNM’s transmission system
The impacts of decreases in the values of marketable securities maintained in trusts to provide for decommissioning, reclamation, pension benefits, and other postretirement benefits, including potential increased volatility resulting from international developments
The effectiveness of risk management regarding commodity transactions and counterparty risk
The outcome of legal proceedings, including the extent of insurance coverage
Changes in applicable accounting principles or policies

For information about the risks associated with the use of derivative financial instruments see Part II, Item 7A. “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

SECURITIES ACT DISCLAIMER
Certain securities described in this report have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or any state securities laws and may not be reoffered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and applicable state securities laws. This Form 10-K does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities.

ITEM 1A.RISK FACTORS
The business and financial results of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond their control, including those set forth below and in MD&A, Note 16, and Note 17. For other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated in any forward-looking statement contained in this report, see Disclosure Regarding Forward Looking Statements in Item 1. Business. TNMP provides transmission and distribution services to REPs that provide electric service to consumers in TNMP’s service territories. References to customers in the risk factors discussed below also encompass the customers of these REPs who are the ultimate consumers of electricity transmitted and distributed through TNMP’s facilities.
Regulatory Factors
The profitability of PNMR’s utilities depends on being able to recover their costs through regulated rates and earn a fair return on invested capital, including investments in its generating plants. PNM and TNMP are in a period of significant capital expenditures, including costs of replacing generating capacity as coal-fired plants are retired. While increased capital investments and other costs are placing upward pressure on rates, energy efficiency initiatives and a sluggish New Mexico economy are reducing usage by customers.

A - 13


The rates PNM charges its customers are regulated by the NMPRC and FERC. TNMP is regulated by the PUCT. The Company is in a period requiring significant capital investment and is projecting total construction expenditures for the years 2018-2022 to be $2,712.1 million. See Note 14. PNM and TNMP anticipate a trend toward increasing costs, for which it will have to seek regulatory recovery. These costs include or are related to:

Costs of asset construction for generation, transmission, and distribution systems necessary to provide electric service, including new generation and transmission resources, as well as the cost to remove and retire existing assets
Environmental compliance expenditures
The regulatory mandate to acquire power from renewable resources
Increased regulation related to nuclear safety
Increased interest costs to finance capital investments
Depreciation
At the same time costs are increasing, there are factors placing downward pressures on the demand for power, thereby reducing load growth and customer usage. These factors include:

Changing customer behaviors, including increased emphasis on energy efficiency measures and utilization of alternative sources of power
Rate design that is not driven by economics, which could influence customer behavior
Unfavorable economic conditions
Reductions in costs of self-generation energy resources and energy efficiency technology
Reduced new sources of demand
Unpredictable weather patterns

In 2017 and 2016, PNM experienced decreases in weather-normalized retail sales of 0.9% and 0.7%. The sales decreases reflect a continued sluggish economy in New Mexico. However, economic conditions in Albuquerque appear to have stabilized. The Albuquerque metro area is showing employment growth, although it continues to be lower than the national average. The economy in New Mexico continues to have mixed indicators and experience softness.

The combination of costs increasing relatively rapidly and the slowing of customer usage places upward pressure on the per unit prices that must be charged to recover costs. This upward pressure on unit prices could result in additional efforts by customers to reduce consumption through energy efficiency or to pursue self-generation or other alternative sources of power. Without timely cost recovery and the authorization to earn a reasonable return on invested capital, the Company’s liquidity and results of operations could be negatively impacted.
Under New Mexico law, utilities may propose the use of a future test year (“FTY”) in establishing rates. As with any forward looking financial information, a FTY presents challenges that are inherent in the forecasting process. Forecasts of both operating and capital expenditures necessitate reliance on many assumptions concerning future conditions and operating results. Accordingly, if rate requests based on a FTY cannot be successfully supported, cash flows and results of operations may be negatively impacted. This could result from not being able to withstand challenges from regulators and intervenors regarding the utility’s capability to make reasonable forecasts.

As discussed in Note 17, PNM filed an application for a general rate increase in December 2014, which the NMPRC dismissed in May 2015, based on the Hearing Examiners recommendation, which cited procedural defects in the filing. In August 2015, PNM filed a new application (the “NM 2015 Rate Case”) with the NMPRC for a general rate increase, including base non-fuel revenues of $121.5 million. The primary drivers of PNM’s identified revenue deficiency were infrastructure investments and the recovery of those investment dollars, including depreciation based on an updated depreciation study, and declines in forecasted energy sales as a result of PNM’s successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors. The NMPRC issued an order authorizing an increase in non-fuel revenues of $61.2 million effective beginning in October 2016. The NMPRC disallowed recovery of PNM’s capital investment in BDT equipment installed on SJGS Units 1 and 4, which is required by the NSR permit for SJGS (Note 16), and a portion of the acquisition costs for PNM’s January 15, 2016 purchase of 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2, which were previously leased to PNM, as well as the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period that capacity was leased. PNM filed an appeal of these disallowances with the NM Supreme Court. Other parties to that rate case have filed cross-appeals to PNM’s appeal in order to appeal other decisions of the NMPRC regarding issues in the rate case. On October 30, 2017, the NM Supreme Court heard oral argument on the case, but has not yet rendered a decision on the appealed matters and there is no required time frame for a decision to be issued.

In December 2016, PNM filed a request (the “NM 2016 Rate Case”) for a general increase in rates of $99.2 million. The primary drivers of PNM’s identified revenue deficiency were implementation of the plan for SJGS to comply with the CAA,

A - 14


including the shutdown of Units 2 and 3 of SJGS, recovery of 50% of the net book value of those units, and the inclusion in retail rates of PVNGS Unit 3 as replacement power (Note 16). The requested increase also reflected new infrastructure investments, including the installation of SCRs at Four Corners, and declines in forecasted energy sales as a result of PNM’s successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors. PNM also proposed changes in rate design to better align electric rates with the actual costs to serve customers and encourage continued energy efficiency while proposing a rate mechanism that eliminates the disincentives associated with energy efficiency and load management programs. On May 23, 2017, PNM and several signatories filed a revised comprehensive stipulation, which reduced the non-fuel revenue increase to $62.3 million and provided that PNM would only earn a debt return on its investments in SCR technology at Four Corners. In January 2018, the NMPRC issued an order, which approved many aspects of the revised comprehensive stipulation with several modifications. These modifications include a requirement for PNM to reflect the impacts of recently enacted federal tax reform in rates beginning in 2018, a disallowance of PNM’s ability to collect an equity return on its $90.1 million investment in SCRs at Four Corners and on $58.0 million of projected additional capital improvements at Four Corners, and a requirement that PNM reduce the $62.3 million non-fuel revenue requested increase by $4.4 million. The NMPRC deferred further consideration regarding the prudency of PNM’s continuation of participation in Four Corners to PNM’s next rate case. On February 7, 2018, NEE filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court asking the court to review the NMPRC’s decisions in the NM 2016 Rate Case.

As discussed in Note 17, PNM filed its 2017 IRP on July 3, 2017. Key findings of the 2017 IRP include that retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 after the expiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements would provide long-term cost savings for PNM’s customers and that PNM exiting its ownership interest in Four Corners after its current coal supply agreement expires in 2031 would also provide long-term cost savings for customers. Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS capacity and exiting Four Corners would require NMPRC approval of abandonment filings, which PNM would make at appropriate times in the future. NMPRC approval of new generation resources through CCN filings would also be required. The NMPRC has issued regulatory orders requiring depreciation (and resultant regulatory recovery) of significant portions of these resources through estimated lives of 2053 for SJGS and 2041 for Four Corners. If the NMPRC approves the retirement of SJGS in 2022 and exiting Four Corners in 2031, PNM will have significant un-recovered investments in those plants. PNM would seek NMPRC approval to recover those investments from ratepayers. At December 31, 2017, the net book values of PNM’s investments in SJGS and Four Corners were $406.7 million and $165.3 million.

An adverse outcome in the NM 2015 Rate Case or the NM 2016 Rate Case, including the pending appeals of those orders before the NM Supreme Court, or the decision in PNM’s next rate case on the issue regarding the prudency of PNM’s continued participation in Four Corners could negatively impact PNM’s financial position, results of operation, and cash flows. Likewise, if the NMPRC does not authorize appropriate recovery of any remaining investments in SJGS and Four Corners at the time those resources cease to be used to provide service to New Mexico ratepayers, including required future investments, and does not authorize recovery of the costs of obtaining power to replace those resources, PNM’s financial position, results of operation, and cash flows could be negatively impacted.
PNM currently recovers the cost of fuel for its generation facilities through its FPPAC. A new coal supply contract for SJGS, which expires on June 30, 2022, became effective on January 31, 2016 and provides for lower coal pricing than under the prior contract. In December 2013, a new fifteen-year coal supply contract for Four Corners beginning in July 2016 was executed. The average coal price per MMBTU under the new contract for Four Corners was approximately 51% higher in the twelve months ended June 30, 2017 than in the twelve months ended June 30, 2016. The contracts provide for pricing adjustments over their terms based on economic indices. Although PNM believes substantially all costs under coal supply arrangements would continue to be recovered through the FPPAC, there can be no assurance that full recovery will be allowed.

PNM’s regulatory approvals from the NMPRC, which are necessary for PNM to comply with the regional haze requirements of the CAA pertaining to SJGS, have been appealed to the NM Supreme Court. Furthermore, the NMPRC approval requires PNM to make a filing in 2018 to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue to serve PNM’s retail customers after June 30, 2022, on which date the SJPPA and the current coal supply agreement will expire. PNMR has counterparty credit risk in connection with financial support provided to facilitate the coal supply arrangement for SJGS. Adverse developments from these factors could have a negative impact on the business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of PNM and PNMR.

SJGS, which currently comprises 26.7% of PNM’s owned and leased generation capacity and is its largest generation resource, is subject to the CAA. As discussed in Note 16, in December 2015, the NMPRC approved a plan enabling SJGS to comply with the CAA (the “BART Approval”). The plan required the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 by December 31, 2017 and the shutdown was completed by that date. NEE, an intervenor in the NMPRC proceeding regarding the approval of the plan, has appealed the BART Approval to the NM Supreme Court. NEE has also filed a complaint with the NMPRC against PNM regarding the financing provided by NM Capital, a subsidiary of PNMR, to facilitate the sale of SJCC, which is discussed below and described under Coal Supply in Note 16. The complaint alleges that PNM failed to comply with its discovery obligation in

A - 15


the SJGS abandonment case and requests the NMPRC to investigate whether the financing transactions could adversely affect PNM’s ability to provide electric service to its retail customers. The NMPRC has taken no action on this matter. If the NM Supreme Court were to negate the BART Approval, it is unclear what the impact would be since SJGS Units 2 and 3 have been retired and ownership of SJGS has been restructured.

The BART Approval also requires PNM to make a filing with the NMPRC no later than December 31, 2018, and before entering into an agreement for post-2022 coal supply for SJGS, setting forth its position in a case to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after mid-2022. The existing SJPPA among the SJGS participants, which governs the operations of SJGS, expires on July 1, 2022 and the new SJGS CSA for coal supply at SJGS described in Note 16 expires on June 30, 2022. PNM has the option to extend the SJGS CSA, subject to negotiation of the term of the extension and compensation to the miner. In order to extend, PNM must give written notice of that intent to the miner by July 1, 2018 and the parties must agree to the terms of the extension by January 1, 2019.

As discussed in Note 17, PNM’s 2017 IRP indicates that retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 after the expiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements and exiting ownership in Four Corners after the current coal supply agreement expires in 2031 would provide long-term cost savings for PNM’s customers. The 2017 IRP addresses a 20-year planning period, from 2017 through 2036, and includes an action plan describing PNM’s plan to implement the 2017 IRP in the four-year period following its filing.

The restructuring of SJGS ownership and obtaining the new coal supply for SJGS were integral components of the process to achieve compliance with the CAA at SJGS. The effectiveness of the new SJGS CSA was dependent on the closing of the purchase of the existing coal mine operation by a new mine operator. In support of the closing of the mine purchase, NM Capital provided a loan of $125.0 million to the purchaser, which has been organized to be a bankruptcy-remote entity. In addition, PNMR has an arrangement with a bank under which the bank has issued $30.3 million of letters of credit in favor of sureties in order for the sureties to post reclamation bonds that are required under the mine’s operating permit. See Note 6 and Note 16.

The inability to operate SJGS or Four Corners or their early retirement would require approval of the NMPRC and would require PNM to obtain power from other sources in order to serve the needs of its customers. There can be no assurance that the NMPRC would approve early retirement or that recovery of any undepreciated investments through rates charged to customers would be authorized. In addition, there can be no assurance that adequate sources of replacement power would be available, that adequate transmission capabilities would be available to bring that power into PNM’s service territory, or whether the cost of obtaining those resources would be economic. Any such events would negatively impact PNM’s financial position, results of operation, and cash flows unless the NMPRC authorized the collection from customers of any un-recovered costs related to SJGS and Four Corners, as well as costs of obtaining replacement power.

It is also possible that unsatisfactory outcomes of these matters, the financial impact of climate change regulation or legislation, other environmental regulations, the result of litigation, the adequacy and timeliness of cost recovery mechanisms, and other business considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of SJGS and/or Four Corners or the ability of individual participants to continue participation in them.

PNMR’s utilities are subject to numerous federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, including those related to climate change, which may impose significant compliance costs and may significantly limit or affect their operations and financial results.

Environmental policies and regulations remain significant concerns for PNMR. Compliance with federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, including those addressing climate change, air quality, CCBs, discharges of wastewater originating from fly ash and bottom ash handling facilities, cooling water, and other matters, may result in increased capital, operating, and other costs, particularly with regard to enforcement efforts focused on power plant emission obligations. These costs could include remediation, containment, civil liability, and monitoring expenses. The Company cannot predict how it would be affected if existing environmental laws and regulations were to be repealed, revised, or reinterpreted, or if new environmental statutes and rules were to be adopted. See Note 16 and the Climate Change Issues subsection of the Other Issues Facing the Company section of MD&A.

Under the Obama Administration, EPA’s Clean Power Plan mandated standards of performance that would limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Individual states would develop and implement plans to ensure compliance with the proposed standards. Currently, the Clean Power Plan is stayed and under review. The Trump Administration has also proposed to repeal the Clean Power Plan and is considering a possible replacement rule. In addition, on June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Therefore, PNMR is dealing with an uncertain regulatory and policy environment. While EPA and other federal agencies may be seeking to reduce climate change regulations,

A - 16


some state agencies, environmental advocacy groups, and other organizations have been focusing considerable attention on GHG from power generation facilities. PNM currently depends on fossil-fueled generation for a significant portion of its electricity. As discussed under Climate Change Issues, this type of generation could be subject to future EPA or state regulations requiring GHG reductions. This includes new, existing, and modified or reconstructed EGUs. The uncertainty regarding climate change regulation presents challenges and represents a possible shift of greater authority to the states to make decisions and issue and enforce regulations. Federal and/or state regulations could result in additional operating restrictions on facilities and increased generation and compliance costs.

CCBs from the operation of SJGS are currently being used in the reclamation of a surface coal mine. These CCBs consist of fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum. Any new regulation that would affect the reclamation process, including mine use of CCBs being classified as hazardous waste, could significantly increase the costs of the disposal of CCBs and the costs of mine reclamation. See Note 16.

A regulatory body may identify a site requiring environmental cleanup and designate PNM or TNMP as a responsible party. There is also uncertainty in quantifying exposure under environmental laws that impose joint and several liability on all potentially responsible parties. Failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations, even if such non-compliance is caused by factors beyond PNM’s or TNMP’s control, may result in the assessment of civil or criminal penalties and fines.

BART determinations have been made for both SJGS and Four Corners under the program to address regional haze in the “four corners” area, which would reduce the levels of NOx emitted at both plants. Significant capital expenditures have been made at SJGS and are continuing at Four Corners for the installation of control technology resulting in operating costs increases. PNMR and its operating subsidiaries may underestimate the costs of environmental compliance, liabilities, and litigation due to the uncertainty inherent in these matters. Although there is uncertainty about the timing and form of the implementation of EPA’s regulations regarding climate change, including the Clean Power Plan, how CCBs used for mine reclamation will be regulated, and regulation of other power plant emissions, including changes to the ambient air quality standards, such regulations could have a material impact on operations. The Company is unable to estimate these costs due to the many uncertainties associated with, among other things, the nature and extent of future regulations and changes in existing regulations, including the changes in regulatory policy under the Trump Administration. Timely regulatory recovery of costs associated with any environmental-related regulations would be needed to maintain a strong financial and operational profile. The above factors could adversely affect the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.

PNMR, PNM, and TNMP are subject to complex government regulation unrelated to the environment, which may have a negative impact on their businesses, financial position and results of operations.
To operate their businesses, PNMR, PNM, and TNMP are required to have numerous permits and approvals from a variety of regulatory agencies. Regulatory bodies with jurisdiction over the utilities include the NMPRC, NMED, PUCT, TCEQ, ERCOT, FERC, NRC, EPA, and NERC. Oversight by these agencies covers many aspects of the Company’s utility operations including, but not limited to: location, construction, and operation of facilities; the purchase of power under long-term contracts; conditions of service; the issuance of securities; and rates charged to customers. FERC has issued a number of rules pertaining to preventing undue discrimination in transmission services and electric reliability standards. The significant level of regulation imposes restrictions on the operations of the Company and causes the incurrence of substantial compliance costs. PNMR and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the impact on their business and operating results from future actions of any agency regulating the Company. Changes in existing regulations or the adoption of new ones could result in additional expenses and/or changes in business operations. Failure to comply with any applicable rules, regulations or decisions may lead to customer refunds, fines, penalties, and other payments, which could materially and adversely affect the results of operations and financial condition of PNMR and its subsidiaries. 
Operational Factors
Customer electricity usage could be reduced by increases in prices charged and other factors.  This could result in underutilization of PNM’s generating capacity, as well as underutilization of the capacities of PNM’s and TNMP’s transmission and distribution systems.  Should this occur, operating and capital costs might not be fully recovered, and financial performance could be negatively impacted.

A number of factors influence customers’ electricity usage.  These factors include, but are not limited to:

Rates charged by PNM and TNMP
Rates charged by REPs utilizing TNMP’s facilities to deliver power
Energy efficiency initiatives

A - 17


Availability and cost of alternative sources of power
National, regional, or local economic conditions

These factors and others may prompt customers to institute additional energy efficiency measures or take other actions that would result in lower power consumption. If customers bypass or underutilize PNM’s and TNMP’s facilities through self-generation, renewable, or other energy resources, technological change, or other measures, revenues would be negatively impacted.

PNM’s and TNMP’s service territories include several military bases and federally funded national laboratories, as well as large industrial customers that have significant direct and indirect impacts on the local economies where they operate.  The Company does not directly provide service to any of the military bases or national laboratories, but does provide service to large industrial customers. The Company’s business could be hurt from the impacts on the local economies associated with these customer groups, as well as directly from the large industrial customers, for a number of reasons, including:

Federally-mandated base closures or significant curtailment of the activities at the bases or national laboratories
Closure of industrial facilities or significant curtailment of their activities
Another factor that could negatively impact the Company is that proposals are periodically advanced in various localities to municipalize, or otherwise take over PNM’s facilities, which PNM believes would require state legislative action to implement, or to establish new municipal utilities in areas currently served by PNM.  If any such initiative is successful, the result could be a material reduction in the usage of the facilities, a reduction in rate base, and reduced earnings.

Should any of the above factors result in facilities being underutilized, the Company’s financial position, operational results, and cash flows could be significantly impacted.

Advances in technology could make electric generating facilities less competitive.

Research and development activities are ongoing for new technologies that produce power or reduce power consumption. These technologies include renewable energy, customer-oriented generation, energy storage, and energy efficiency. PNM generates power at central station power plants to achieve economies of scale and produce power at a cost that is competitive with rates established through the regulatory process. There are distributed generation technologies that produce power, including fuel cells, microturbines, wind turbines, and solar cells, which have become increasingly cost competitive. It is possible that advances in technology will continue to reduce the costs of these alternative methods of producing power to a level that is competitive with that of central station power production. Advances in the capabilities for energy storage could also have impacts on power production by PNM as it would be increasingly simple to reduce peak usage by dispatching battery systems. This could result in demand reduction that could negatively impact revenue and/or result in underutilized assets that had been built to serve peak usage. If these technologies become cost competitive and achieve economies of scale, PNM’s energy sales could be eroded, and the value of its generating facilities could be reduced. Advances in technology could also change the channels through which electric customers purchase or use power, which could reduce the Company’s sales and revenues or increase expenses. These advances can also create more uncertainty in load shapes and forecasts, which could have implications for generation and system planning.

Costs of decommissioning, remediation, and restoration of nuclear and fossil-fueled power plants, as well as reclamation of related coal mines, could exceed the estimates of PNMR and PNM as well as the amounts PNM recovers from its ratepayers, which could negatively impact results of operations and liquidity.

PNM has interests in a nuclear power plant, two coal-fired power plants, and several natural gas-fired power plants. PNM is obligated to pay for the costs of decommissioning its share of the power plants. PNM is also obligated to pay for its share of the costs of reclamation of the mines that supply coal to the coal-fired power plants. Likewise, other owners or participants are responsible for their shares of the decommissioning and reclamation obligations and it is important to PNM that those parties fulfill their obligations. Rates charged by PNM to its customers, as approved by the NMPRC, include a provision for recovery of certain costs of decommissioning, remediation, reclamation, and restoration. The NMPRC has established a cap on the amount of costs for the final reclamation of the surface coal mines that may be recovered from customers. PNM records estimated liabilities for its share of the legal obligations for decommissioning and reclamation in accordance with GAAP. These estimates include many assumptions about future events and are inherently imprecise. As discussed in Note 17, PNM’s 2017 IRP indicates that retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 and exiting PNM’s ownership interest in Four Corners in 2031 would provide long-term cost savings for customers. Should those events occur, the costs of reclamation for the coal mines serving those plants would increase and the increases could be significant. In the event any of these costs exceed current estimates, results of operations could be negatively impacted unless the NMPRC authorizes recovery of the additional costs from ratepayers. In addition, the NMPRC’s order in the NM 2015 Rate Case (Note 17) disallows recovery of future contributions for the decommissioning of certain portions of PVNGS. PNM has appealed the NMPRC decision in the NM 2015 Rate Case, oral argument has been held, and the appeal is

A - 18


pending before the NM Supreme Court. An adverse outcome of the appeal could negatively impact PNM’s future results of operations, cash flows, and liquidity.

The costs of decommissioning any nuclear power plant are substantial. PNM is responsible for all decommissioning obligations related to its entire interest in PVNGS, including portions under lease both during and after termination of the leases. PNM maintains trust funds designed to provide adequate financial resources for decommissioning PVNGS and for reclamation of the coal mines serving SJGS and Four Corners at the end of their expected lives. However, if the PVNGS units are decommissioned before their planned date or the coal mines are shut down sooner than expected, these funds may prove to be insufficient.

The financial performance of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP may be adversely affected if power plants and transmission and distribution systems do not operate reliably and efficiently.
The Company’s financial performance depends on the successful operation of PNM’s generation assets, as well as the transmission and distribution systems of PNM and TNMP. As indicated above, SJGS Units 2 and 3 were shut down in December 2017. Also, PNM’s 2017 IRP indicates that retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 and that PNM exiting its ownership interest in Four Corners in 2031 would also provide long-term cost savings for customers. These actions will increase PNM’s dependency on other generation resources, particularly PVNGS, and will reduce PNM’s flexibility in managing those resources. Unscheduled or longer than expected maintenance outages, breakdown or failure of equipment or processes due to aging infrastructure, temporary or permanent shutdowns to achieve environmental compliance, other performance problems with the electric generation assets, severe weather conditions, accidents and other catastrophic events, acts of war or terrorism, cybersecurity attacks, disruptions in the supply, quality, and delivery of fuel and water supplies, and other factors could result in PNM’s load requirements being larger than available system generation capacity. Assured supplies of water are important for PNM’s generating plants. Water in the southwestern United States is limited and there are conflicting claims regarding water rights. In addition, the “four corners” region where SJGS and Four Corners are located is prone to drought conditions, which could potentially affect the plants’ water supplies. Unplanned outages of generating units and extensions of scheduled outages occur from time to time and are an inherent risk of the Company’s business. If these were to occur, PNM would be required to purchase electricity in either the wholesale market or spot market at the then-current market price. There can be no assurance that sufficient electricity would be available at reasonable prices, or available at all. The failure of transmission or distribution facilities may also affect PNM’s and TNMP’s ability to deliver power. These potential generation, distribution, and transmission problems, and any service interruptions related to them, could result in lost revenues and additional costs.

PNMR, PNM, and TNMP are subject to information security breaches and risks of unauthorized access to their information and operational technology systems as well as physical threats to assets.
The Company faces the risk of physical and cybersecurity attacks, both threatened and actual, against generation facilities, transmission and distribution infrastructure used to transport power, information technology systems, and network infrastructure, which could negatively impact the ability of the Company to generate, transport, and deliver power, or otherwise operate facilities in the most efficient manner or at all.

The utility industry in which the Company operates is a highly regulated industry that requires the continued operation of sophisticated information technology systems and network infrastructure, some of which are deemed to be critical infrastructure under NERC guidelines. Certain of the Company’s systems are interconnected with external networks. In the regular course of business, the utilities handle a range of sensitive security and customer information. PNM and TNMP are subject to the rules of various agencies concerning safeguarding and maintaining the confidentiality of this information. Despite steps the Company may take to detect, mitigate and/or eliminate cybersecurity threats and respond to data security incidents, the techniques used by those who wish to obtain unauthorized access, and possibly disable or sabotage systems and/or abscond with confidential information and data, change frequently and the Company may not be able to protect against such actions.

In the event a party desires to disrupt the bulk power or transmission systems in the United States, the Company’s computer and operating systems could be subject to physical or cybersecurity attack.  Although the Company has implemented security measures, critical infrastructure, including information and operational technology systems, are vulnerable to disability, failures, or unauthorized access, which could occur as a result of malicious compromise, employee error, and/or employee misconduct.  A successful physical or cybersecurity attack or other similar failure of the systems could impact the reliability of PNM’s generation and PNM’s and TNMP’s transmission and distribution systems, including the possible unauthorized shutdown of facilities. Such an event could lead to significant disruptions of business operations, including the Company’s ability to generate, transport, and deliver power to serve customers, to bill customers, and to process other financial information. Moreover, a breach of the Company’s information technology systems could also lead to the loss and destruction of confidential and proprietary data, customer and employee data (which may include personally identifiable information such as names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses

A - 19


and payment account information), trade secrets, intellectual property and supplier data, and could disrupt business operations which could harm the Company’s reputation and financial results, as well as potential increased regulatory oversight, litigation, fines, and other remedial action. The costs incurred to investigate and remediate a physical or cybersecurity attack could be significant. A physical or cybersecurity attack on the Company’s critical infrastructure could have a material adverse impact on the operations and financial condition of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP.
There are inherent risks in the ownership and operation of nuclear facilities.
PNM has a 10.2% undivided interest in PVNGS, including interests in Units 1 and 2 held under leases. PVNGS represents 19.1% of PNM’s total owned and leased generating capacity. PVNGS is subject to environmental, health, and financial risks, including, but not limited to:
The ability to obtain adequate supplies of nuclear fuel and water
The ability to dispose of spent nuclear fuel
Decommissioning of the plant (see above)
Securing the facilities against possible terrorist attacks
Unscheduled outages due to equipment failures
The NRC has broad authority under federal law to impose licensing and safety-related requirements for the operation of nuclear generation facilities. Events at nuclear facilities of other operators or which impact the industry generally may lead the NRC to impose additional requirements and regulations on all nuclear generation facilities, including PVNGS. A major incident at a nuclear facility anywhere in the world could cause the NRC to limit or prohibit the operation or licensing of any domestic nuclear unit and to promulgate new regulations that could require significant capital expenditures and/or increase operating costs.
In the event of noncompliance with its requirements, the NRC has the authority to impose a progressively increasing inspection regime that could ultimately result in the shutdown of a unit, civil penalties, or both, depending upon the NRC’s assessment of the severity of the situation, until compliance is achieved. Increased costs resulting from penalties, a heightened level of scrutiny, and/or implementation of plans to achieve compliance with NRC requirements could adversely affect the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of PNMR and PNM. Although PNM has no reason to anticipate a serious nuclear incident at PVNGS, if an incident did occur, it could materially and adversely affect PNM’s results of operations and financial condition. 
PNM has external insurance coverage to minimize its financial exposure to some risks. However, it is possible that liabilities associated with nuclear operations could exceed the amount of insurance coverage. See Note 16.
Demand for power could exceed supply capacity, resulting in increased costs for purchasing capacity in the open market or building additional generation facilities.

PNM is obligated to supply power to retail customers and certain wholesale customers. At peak times, power demand could exceed PNM’s available generation capacity, particularly if PNM’s power plants are not performing as anticipated. In addition, SJGS units 2 and 3 were shut down in December 2017 and PNM’s 2017 IRP indicates that it would save customers money for PNM to shut down the remaining two units of SJGS in 2022 and to exit ownership in Four Corners in 2031. SJGS and Four Corners comprise a significant portion of PNM’s base load generation capacity and their retirement would increase reliance on other existing or new generating resources. Market forces, competitive forces, or adverse regulatory actions may require PNM to purchase capacity on the open market or build additional generation capabilities. Regulators or market conditions may not permit PNM to pass all of these purchases or construction costs on to customers. If that occurs, PNM may not be able to fully recover these costs or there may be a lag between when costs are incurred and when regulators permit recovery in customers’ rates. These situations could have negative impacts on results of operations and cash flows.

General Economic and Weather Factors
General economic conditions of the nation and/or specific areas can affect the Company’s customers and suppliers. Economic recession or downturn may result in decreased consumption by customers and increased bad debt expense, and could also negatively impact suppliers, all of which could negatively impact the Company.
Economic activity in the service territories of PNMR subsidiaries is a key factor in their performance. Decreased economic activity can lead to declines in energy consumption, which could adversely affect future revenues, earnings, and growth.  Higher unemployment rates, both in the Company’s service territories and nationwide, could result in commercial customers ceasing operations and lower levels of income for residential customers. These customers might then be unable to pay their bills on time,

A - 20


which could increase bad debt expense and negatively impact results of operations and cash flows. Economic conditions also impact the supply and/or cost of commodities and materials needed to construct or acquire utility assets or make necessary repairs.
Uncertainties regarding the impacts and implementation of recent United States tax reform legislation may negatively impact PNMR’s, PNM’s, and TNMP’s businesses, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

On December 22, 2017, comprehensive changes in United States federal income taxes were enacted through legislation commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”). Among other things, the Tax Act reduces the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% effective January 1, 2018, eliminates federal bonus depreciation for utilities effective September 28, 2017, and, effective January 1, 2018, limits interest deductibility for non-utility businesses and limits the deductibility of certain officer compensation. In December 2017, the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118, which provides guidance to address the application of GAAP to reflect the Tax Act in circumstances where all information and analysis of the Tax Act is not yet available or complete. This bulletin provides for up to a one-year period in which to complete the required analyses and accounting for the impacts of the Tax Act.

In accordance with GAAP, the Company adjusted its deferred tax assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2017 resulting in increases in regulatory liabilities related to adjustments of net deferred tax liabilities associated with regulated activities, which will be returned to PNM’s and TNMP’s ratepayers over time, and increases in income tax expense related to adjustments of net deferred tax assets related to items excluded from regulated activities. The Company believes it has made reasonable estimates of the effects of the Tax Act as of December 31, 2017 and reflected the impacts in the Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company currently believes that the impacts of the Tax Act will not significantly impact the future earnings of regulated activities due to the ratemaking process. However, cash flows will be reduced in the near term due to less cash being received from customer billings as the benefits of the reduced corporate income tax are passed on to ratepayers, but without a corresponding reduction in income taxes paid due to the Company having a net operating loss carryforward for income taxes purposes. In addition, the income tax benefit of net losses for the unregulated activities of PNMR, primarily interest expense on holding company debt, will be negatively impacted by the reduced rate. Furthermore, there is uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the provision of the Tax Act that limits the deductibility of interest for non-utility businesses under the interest expense allocation methodology that is generally used by the utility industry.

It is possible that changes to U.S. Treasury regulations, IRS interpretations of the provisions of the Tax Act, actions by the NMPRC, PUCT, and FERC, or the Company’s further analysis of historical records could cause the estimates of the impacts recorded as of December 31, 2017 to change or cause the Company’s current assessment of future impacts to change. Any such change could adversely affect the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

The operating results of PNMR and its operating subsidiaries fluctuate on a seasonal and quarterly basis, as well as being affected by weather conditions, including regional drought.
Electric generation, transmission, and distribution are generally seasonal businesses that vary with the demand for power. With power consumption typically peaking during the hot summer months, revenues traditionally peak during that period. As a result, quarterly operating results of PNMR and its operating subsidiaries vary throughout the year. In addition, PNMR and its operating subsidiaries have historically had lower revenues resulting in lower earnings when weather conditions are milder. Unusually mild weather in the future could reduce the revenues, net earnings, and cash flows of the Company.
Drought conditions in New Mexico, especially in the “four corners” region, where SJGS and Four Corners are located, may affect the water supply for PNM’s generating plants.  If inadequate precipitation occurs in the watershed that supplies that region, PNM may have to decrease generation at these plants. This would require PNM to purchase power to serve customers and/or reduce the ability to sell excess power on the wholesale market and reduce revenues. Drought conditions or actions taken by the court system, regulators, or legislators could limit PNM’s supply of water, which would adversely impact PNM’s business. Although SJGS and Four Corners participate in voluntary shortage sharing agreements with tribes and other water users in the “four corners” region, PNM cannot be certain these contracts will be enforceable in the event of a major drought or that it will be able to renew these contracts in the future.
TNMP’s service areas are exposed to extreme weather, including high winds, drought, flooding, ice storms, and periodic hurricanes. Extreme weather conditions, particularly high winds and severe thunderstorms, also occur periodically in PNM’s service areas. These severe weather events can physically damage facilities owned by TNMP and PNM. Any such occurrence both disrupts the ability to deliver energy and increases costs. Extreme weather can also reduce customers’ usage and demand for energy. These factors could negatively impact results of operations and cash flows.

A - 21


Financial Factors
PNMR may be unable to meet its ongoing and future financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock if its subsidiaries are unable to pay dividends or distributions to PNMR.
PNMR is a holding company and has no operations of its own. PNMR’s ability to meet its financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock primarily depends on the net income and cash flows of PNM and TNMP and their capacity to pay upstream dividends or distributions. Prior to providing funds to PNMR, PNM and TNMP have financial and regulatory obligations that must be satisfied, including among others, debt service and, in the case of PNM, preferred stock dividends.
The NMPRC has placed certain restrictions on the ability of PNM to pay dividends to PNMR, including that PNM cannot pay dividends that cause its debt rating to fall below investment grade. The NMPRC has also restricted PNM from paying dividends in any year, as determined on a rolling four-quarter basis, in excess of net earnings without prior NMPRC approval. PNM is permitted to pay dividends to PNMR from prior equity contributions made by PNMR. Additionally, the Company’s financing agreements generally include a covenant to maintain a debt-to-capital ratio that does not exceed 65%, PNM has various financial covenants that limit the transfer of assets, through dividends or other means and the Federal Power Act imposes certain restrictions on dividends paid by public utilities, including that dividends cannot be paid from paid-in capital.
Further, the ability of PNMR to declare dividends depends upon:

The extent to which cash flows will support dividends
The Company’s financial circumstances and performance
Decisions of the NMPRC and PUCT in various regulatory cases currently pending or that may be docketed in the future, including the outcome of appeals of those decisions
Conditions imposed by the NMPRC, PUCT, or Federal Power Act
The effect of federal regulatory decisions and legislative acts
Economic conditions in the United States and in the Company’s service areas
Future growth plans and the related capital requirements
Other business considerations

Disruption in the credit and capital markets may impact the Company’s strategy and ability to raise capital.
As discussed in MD&A – Liquidity and Capital Resources, PNMR and its subsidiaries rely on access to both short-term and longer-term capital markets as sources of liquidity for any capital requirements not satisfied by cash flow from operations. In general, the Company relies on its short-term credit facilities as the initial source to finance construction expenditures. This results in increased borrowings under the facilities over time. The Company is currently projecting total construction expenditures for the years 2018-2022 to be $2,712.1 million. If PNMR or its operating subsidiaries are not able to access capital at competitive rates, or at all, PNMR’s ability to finance capital requirements and implement its strategy will be limited. Disruptions in the credit markets, which could negatively impact the Company’s access to capital, could be caused by:
An economic recession
Declines in the health of the banking sector generally, or the failure of specific banks who are parties to the Company’s credit facilities
Deterioration in the overall health of the utility industry
The bankruptcy of an unrelated energy company
War, terrorist attacks, or cybersecurity attacks, or threatened attacks
If the Company’s cash flow and credit and capital resources are insufficient to fund capital expenditure plans, the Company may be forced to delay important capital investments, sell assets, seek additional equity or debt capital, or restructure debt. In addition, insufficient cash flows and capital resources may result in reductions of credit ratings. This could negatively impact the Company’s ability to incur additional indebtedness on acceptable terms and would result in an increase in the interest rates applicable under the Company’s credit facilities. The Company’s cash flow and capital resources may be insufficient to pay interest and principal on debt in the future. If that should occur, the Company’s capital raising or debt restructuring measures may be unsuccessful or inadequate to meet scheduled debt service obligations. This could cause the Company to default on its obligations and further impair liquidity.
Reduction in credit ratings or changing rating agency requirements could materially and adversely affect the Company’s growth, strategy, business, financial position, results of operations, and liquidity.

A - 22


PNMR, PNM, and TNMP cannot be sure that any of their current credit ratings will remain in effect for any given period of time or that a rating will not be put under review for a downgrade, lowered, or withdrawn entirely by a rating agency. On January 16, 2018, S&P changed the outlook for PNMR, PNM and TNMP from stable to negative while affirming the investment grade ratings of each entity. Downgrades or changing requirements could result in increased borrowing costs due to higher interest rates on current borrowings or future financings, a smaller potential pool of investors, and decreased funding sources. Such conditions also could require the provision of additional support in the form of letters of credit and cash or other collateral to various counterparties.

Declines in values of marketable securities held in trust funds for pension and other postretirement benefits and in the NDT and mine reclamation trusts could result in sustained increases in costs and funding requirements for those obligations, which may affect operational results.

Through 2017, the Company targeted 21% of its pension trust funds and 70% of its trust funds for other postretirement benefits to be invested in marketable equity securities. Historically, over one-half of funds held in the NDT and mine reclamation trusts have been invested in marketable equity securities. Due to the current funded status of the NDT and recent overall market performance, PNM began re-balancing the NDT investment portfolio with a target of 85% fixed income (debt) securities. The re-balancing was completed in January 2018 and increases the exposure of the NDT investment portfolio to interest rate risk. The Company is also contemplating decreasing its allocation target beginning in 2018 for liability matching fixed-income securities in the pension trusts from 65% to 50%. Declines in market values could result in increased funding of the trusts, the recognition of losses as impairments for the NDT and mine reclamation trusts, and additional expense for the benefit plans. In addition, a change in GAAP requires that all changes in the fair value of equity securities recorded on the Company’s balance sheet be reflected in earnings beginning in 2018, which could result in increased volatility in earnings.

Impairments of goodwill and long-lived assets of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP could adversely affect the Company’s business, financial position, liquidity, and results of operations.
The Company annually evaluates recorded goodwill for impairment. See Note 18 and the Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates section of MD&A. Long-lived assets are also assessed whenever indicators of impairment exist. Factors that affect the long-term value of these assets, including treatment by regulators in ratemaking proceedings, as well as other economic and market conditions, could result in impairments. Significant impairments could adversely affect the Company’s business, financial position, liquidity, and results of operations.

PNM’s PVNGS leases describe certain events, including “Events of Loss” and “Deemed Loss Events”, the occurrence of which could require PNM to take ownership of the underlying assets and pay the lessors for the assets.
The “Events of Loss” generally relate to casualties, accidents, and other events at PVNGS, including the occurrence of specified nuclear events, which would severely adversely affect the ability of the operating agent, APS, to operate, and the ability of PNM to earn a return on its interests in PVNGS.  The “Deemed Loss Events” consist primarily of legal and regulatory changes (such as issuance by the NRC of specified violation orders, changes in law making the sale and leaseback transactions illegal, or changes in law making the lessors liable for nuclear decommissioning obligations). PNM believes that the probability of such “Events of Loss” or “Deemed Loss Events” occurring is remote for the following reasons: (1) to a large extent, prevention of “Events of Loss” and some “Deemed Loss Events” is within the control of the PVNGS participants through the general PVNGS operational and safety oversight process; and (2) other “Deemed Loss Events” would involve a significant change in current law and policy. PNM is unaware of any proposals pending or being considered for introduction in Congress, or in any state legislative or regulatory body that, if adopted, would cause any of those events. See Note 7.
Governance Factors
Provisions of PNMR’s organizational documents, as well as several other statutory and regulatory factors, will limit another party’s ability to acquire PNMR and could deprive PNMR’s shareholders of the opportunity to receive a takeover premium for shares of PNMR’s common stock.
PNMR’s restated articles of incorporation and by-laws include a number of provisions that may have the effect of discouraging persons from acquiring large blocks of PNMR’s common stock, or delaying or preventing a change in control of PNMR. The material provisions that may have such an effect include:
Authorization for the Board to issue PNMR’s preferred stock in series and to fix rights and preferences of the series (including, among other things, voting rights and preferences with respect to dividends and other matters)
Advance notice procedures with respect to any proposal other than those adopted or recommended by the Board

A - 23


Provisions specifying that only a majority of the Board, the chairman of the Board, the chief executive officer, or holders of at least one-tenth of all of PNMR’s shares entitled to vote may call a special meeting of stockholders
Under the New Mexico Public Utility Act, NMPRC approval is required for certain transactions that may result in PNMR’s change in control or exercise of control, including ownership of 10% or more of PNMR’s voting stock. PUCT approval is required for changes to the ownership of TNMP or its parent and certain other transactions relating to TNMP. Certain acquisitions of PNMR’s outstanding voting securities also require FERC approval.

ITEM 1B.UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.

ITEM 2.PROPERTIES
PNMR
The significant properties owned by PNMR include those owned by PNM and TNMP and are disclosed below.
PNM
See Sources of Power in Part I, Item. 1 Business above for information on PNM’s owned and leased capacity in electric generating stations. As of December 31, 2017, PNM owned, or jointly owned, 3,200 miles of electric transmission lines, 6,063 miles of distribution overhead lines, 5,828 miles of underground distribution lines (excluding street lighting), and 254 substations. PNM’s electric transmission and distribution lines are generally located within easements and rights-of-way on public, private, and Native American lands. PNM owns and leases interests in PVNGS Units 1 and 2 and related property, data processing, communication, office and other equipment, office space, vehicles, and real estate. PNM also owns and leases service and office facilities in Albuquerque and in other areas throughout its service territory. See Note 7 for additional information concerning leases, including PNM’s renewal of certain of the PVNGS leases and exercise of its option to purchase the assets underlying certain other leases at the expiration of the original lease terms. See Note 9 for additional information about Valencia.
TNMP
TNMP’s facilities consist primarily of transmission and distribution facilities located in its service areas. TNMP also owns and leases vehicles, service facilities, and office locations throughout its service territory. As of December 31, 2017, TNMP owned 978 miles of overhead electric transmission lines, 7,119 miles of overhead distribution lines, 1,241 miles of underground distribution lines, and 116 substations. Substantially all of TNMP’s property is pledged to secure its first mortgage bonds. See Note 6.


A - 24


ITEM 3.LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

See Note 16 and Note 17 for information related to the following matters for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP, incorporated in this item by reference.

Note 16

The Clean Air Act – Regional Haze – SJGS
The Clean Air Act – Regional Haze – Four Corners – Four Corners Federal Agency Lawsuit
WEG v. OSM NEPA Lawsuit
Navajo Nation Environmental Issues
Santa Fe Generating Station
Coal Supply – Four Corners – Four Corners Coal Supply Arbitration
Continuous Highwall Mining Royalty Rate
PVNGS Water Supply Litigation
San Juan River Adjudication
Rights-of-Way Matter
Navajo Nation Allottee Matters
Sales Tax Audits

Note 17

PNM – New Mexico General Rate Cases
PNM – Renewable Portfolio Standard
PNM – Renewable Energy Rider
PNM – Energy Efficiency and Load Management
PNM – Integrated Resource Plans
PNM – San Juan Generating Station Units 2 and 3 Retirement
PNM – Advanced Metering Infrastructure Application
TNMP – Transmission Cost of Service Rates
TNMP – Order Related to Changes in Federal Income Tax Rates

ITEM 4.MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not Applicable.

SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM – EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
All officers are elected annually by the Board of PNMR. Executive officers, their ages as of February 23, 2018 and offices held with PNMR for the past five years are as follows:
NameAgeOfficeInitial Effective Date
P. K. Collawn59Chairman, President, and Chief Executive OfficerJanuary 2012
C. N. Eldred64Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerJuly 2007
P. V. Apodaca66Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and SecretaryJanuary 2010
R. N. Darnell60Senior Vice President, Public PolicyJanuary 2012
J. D. Tarry47Vice President, Finance and ControllerFebruary 2017
Vice President, Corporate Controller, and Chief Information OfficerApril 2015
Vice President, Customer Service and Chief Information OfficerMay 2012
C. M. Olson60Senior Vice President, Utility OperationsFebruary 2018
Vice President, Utility OperationsDecember 2016
Vice President, Generation – PNMNovember 2012



A - 25


PART II
ITEM 5.MARKET FOR PNMR’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS, AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

PNMR’s common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (Symbol: PNM). Ranges of sales prices of PNMR’s common stock, reported as composite transactions, and dividends declared on the common stock for 2017 and 2016, by quarter, are as follows:
Quarter Ended
Range of
Sales Prices
 Dividends Declared Per Share
 High Low 
2017     
March 31$37.60
 $33.45
 $0.2425
June 3040.00
 36.30
 0.2425
September 3042.95
 37.35
 0.2425
December 3145.50
 40.20
 0.2650
Fiscal Year45.50
 33.45
 0.9925
2016     
March 31$34.07
 $29.22
 $0.2200
June 3035.46
 30.62
 0.2200
September 3036.15
 31.20
 0.2200
December 3134.53
 30.95
 0.2425
Fiscal Year36.15
 29.22
 0.9025

Dividends on PNMR’s common stock are declared by its Board. The timing of the declaration of dividends is dependent on the timing of meetings and other actions of the Board. This has historically resulted in dividends considered to be attributable to the second quarter of each year being declared through actions of the Board during the third quarter of the year. The Board declared dividends on common stock considered to be for the second quarter of $0.22 per share in July 2016 and $0.2425 per share in July 2017, which are reflected as being in the second quarter above. The Board declared dividends on common stock considered to be for the third quarter of $0.22 per share in September 2016 and $0.2425 per share in September 2017, which are reflected as being in the third quarter above. On February 23, 2018, the Board declared a quarterly dividend of $0.2650 per share. PNMR targets a long-term dividend payout ratio of 50% to 60% of ongoing earnings, which is a non-GAAP financial measure that excludes from earnings determined in accordance with GAAP certain non-recurring, infrequent, and other items that are not indicative of fundamental changes in the earnings capacity of the Company’s operations. PNMR uses ongoing earnings to evaluate the operations of the Company and to establish goals, including those used for certain aspects of incentive compensation, for management and employees.
On February 20, 2018, there were 8,946 holders of record of PNMR’s common stock. All of the outstanding common stock of PNM and TNMP is held by PNMR.
See Note 5 for a discussion on limitations on the payments of dividends and the payment of future dividends, as well as dividends paid by PNM and TNMP.
See Part III, Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
Preferred Stock
PNM is not aware of any active trading market for its cumulative preferred stock. Quarterly cash dividends were paid on PNM’s outstanding cumulative preferred stock at the stated rates during 2017 and 2016. PNMR and TNMP do not have any preferred stock outstanding.
Sales of Unregistered Securities
None.


A - 26


ITEM 6.SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The selected financial data and comparative operating statistics for PNMR should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto and MD&A.
PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands except per share amounts and ratios)
Total Operating Revenues$1,445,003
 $1,362,951
 $1,439,082
 $1,435,853
 $1,387,923
Net Earnings$95,419
 $131,896
 $31,078
 $130,909
 $115,556
Net Earnings Attributable to PNMR$79,874
 $116,849
 $15,640
 $116,254
 $100,507
Net Earnings Attributable to PNMR per Common Share         
Basic$1.00
 $1.47
 $0.2
 $1.46
 $1.26
Diluted$1.00
 $1.46
 $0.2
 $1.45
 $1.25
Cash Flow Data         
Net cash flows from operating activities$524,462
 $415,454
 $386,874
 $414,876
 $386,587
Net cash flows from investing activities$(466,163) $(699,375) $(544,528) $(485,329) $(331,446)
Net cash flows from financing activities$(58,847) $242,392
 $175,431
 $96,194
 $(61,593)
Total Assets$6,646,103
 $6,471,080
 $6,009,328
 $5,790,237
 $5,426,858
Long-Term Debt, including current installments$2,437,645
 $2,392,712
 $2,091,948
 $1,962,385
 $1,730,749
Common Stock Data         
Market price per common share at year end$40.45
 $34.30
 $30.57
 $29.63
 $24.12
Book value per common share at year end$21.28
 $21.04
 $20.78
 $21.61
 $21.01
Tangible book value per share at year end$17.79
 $17.55
 $17.28
 $18.12
 $17.52
Average number of common shares outstanding – diluted80,141
 80,132
 80,139
 80,279
 80,431
Dividends declared per common share$0.9925
 $0.9025
 $0.8200
 $0.7550
 $0.6800
Capitalization         
PNMR common stockholders’ equity40.9% 41.1% 44.0% 46.6% 49.0%
Preferred stock of subsidiary, without mandatory redemption requirements0.3
 0.3
 0.3
 0.3
 0.3
Long-term debt58.8
 58.6
 55.7
 53.1
 50.7
 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%




A - 27


PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPARATIVE OPERATING STATISTICS
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands)
PNM Revenues         
Residential$419,105
 $395,490
 $427,958
 $411,412
 $411,579
Commercial408,354
 394,150
 437,279
 428,085
 415,621
Industrial58,851
 56,650
 75,308
 73,002
 74,552
Public authority23,604
 23,174
 26,202
 25,278
 25,745
Economy service30,645
 31,121
 35,132
 39,123
 32,909
Transmission45,932
 34,267
 33,216
 38,284
 38,228
Firm-requirements wholesale4,468
 22,497
 31,263
 38,313
 42,370
Other sales for resale (1)
101,897
 70,375
 63,195
 82,508
 67,538
Mark-to-market activity1,317
 (1,645) (5,270) 5,996
 293
Other10,057
 9,834
 6,912
 5,913
 7,477
Total PNM Revenues$1,104,230
 $1,035,913
 $1,131,195
 $1,147,914
 $1,116,312
TNMP Revenues         
Residential$126,587
 $124,462
 $120,771
 $114,826
 $111,373
Commercial106,503
 103,174
 102,956
 99,701
 95,098
Industrial18,140
 17,427
 16,316
 15,049
 13,084
Other89,543
 81,975
 67,844
 58,363
 52,056
Total TNMP Revenues$340,773
 $327,038
 $307,887
 $287,939
 $271,611

(1) Includes sales to Tri-State under hazard sharing agreement (Note 17).
PNM MWh Sales         
Residential3,136,066
 3,189,527
 3,185,363
 3,169,071
 3,304,350
Commercial3,774,417
 3,831,295
 3,800,472
 3,874,292
 3,954,774
Industrial850,914
 875,109
 957,308
 984,130
 1,041,160
Public authority250,500
 249,860
 246,496
 251,187
 266,368
Economy service722,501
 805,733
 796,430
 758,629
 719,342
Firm-requirements wholesale87,600
 429,345
 444,495
 527,597
 654,135
Other sales for resale (1)
3,632,137
 2,899,322
 2,110,947
 2,271,480
 2,061,851
Total PNM MWh Sales12,454,135
 12,280,191
 11,541,511
 11,836,386
 12,001,980
TNMP MWh Sales         
Residential2,936,291
 2,933,938
 2,912,019
 2,802,768
 2,796,661
Commercial2,793,263
 2,742,366
 2,654,102
 2,583,664
 2,472,979
Industrial3,202,528
 2,976,800
 2,804,919
 2,708,151
 2,576,762
Other94,767
 98,596
 100,999
 102,118
 104,516
Total TNMP MWh Sales9,026,849
 8,751,700
 8,472,039
 8,196,701
 7,950,918

(1) Includes sales to Tri-State under hazard sharing agreement (Note 17).



A - 28


PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPARATIVE OPERATING STATISTICS
 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
PNM Customers         
Residential465,950
 462,921
 459,353
 455,907
 453,218
Commercial56,655
 56,357
 56,107
 55,853
 55,447
Industrial239
 247
 250
 249
 251
Economy service1
 1
 1
 1
 1
Other sales for resale36
 36
 39
 39
 34
Other931
 887
 908
 911
 928
Total PNM Customers523,812
 520,449
 516,658
 512,960
 509,879
TNMP Consumers         
Residential207,788
 204,744
 202,359
 199,963
 196,799
Commercial39,814
 39,817
 39,014
 38,033
 37,460
Industrial82
 66
 70
 70
 70
Other1,948
 1,993
 2,018
 2,044
 2,070
Total TNMP Consumers249,632
 246,620
 243,461
 240,110
 236,399
PNM Generation Statistics         
Net Capability – MW, including PPAs (1)
2,580
 2,791
 2,787
 2,707
 2,572
Coincidental Peak Demand – MW1,843
 1,908
 1,889
 1,878
 2,008
Average Fuel Cost per MMBTU$1.704
 $1.821
 $2.168
 $2.415
 $2.237
BTU per KWh of Net Generation10,396
 9,975
 10,456
 10,422
 10,308
          
(1) 2017 amount is reflective of the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 in December 2017 and restructured ownership of SJGS Unit 4 as of December 31, 2017



A - 29


ITEM 7.MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for PNMR is presented on a combined basis, including certain information applicable to PNM and TNMP. The MD&A for PNM and TNMP is presented as permitted by Form 10-K General Instruction I (2). A reference to a “Note” in this Item 7 refers to the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part II, Item 8, unless otherwise specified. Certain of the tables below may not appear visually accurate due to rounding.
MD&A FOR PNMR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview and Strategy
PNMR is a holding company with two regulated utilities serving approximately 773,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers and end-users of electricity in New Mexico and Texas. PNMR’s electric utilities are PNM and TNMP.
Strategic Goals
PNMR is focused on achieving three key strategic goals:

Earning authorized returns on regulated businesses
Delivering above industry-average earnings and dividend growth
Maintaining solid investment grade credit ratings

In conjunction with these goals, PNM and TNMP are dedicated to:

Maintaining strong employee safety, plant performance, and system reliability
Delivering a superior customer experience
Demonstrating environmental stewardship in their business operations
Supporting the communities in their service territories

Earning Authorized Returns on Regulated Businesses

PNMR’s success in accomplishing its strategic goals is highly dependent on two key factors: fair and timely regulatory treatment for its utilities and the utilities’ strong operating performance. The Company has multiple strategies to achieve favorable regulatory treatment, all of which have as their foundation a focus on the basics: safety, operational excellence, and customer satisfaction, while engaging stakeholders to build productive relationships. Both PNM and TNMP seek cost recovery for their investments through general rate cases and various rate riders.

Fair and timely rate treatment from regulators is crucial to PNM and TNMP in earning their allowed returns and critical for PNMR to achieve its strategic goals. PNMR believes that earning allowed returns is viewed positively by credit rating agencies and that improvements in the Company’s ratings could lower costs to utility customers. Also, earning allowed returns should result in increased earnings for PNMR. Additional information about rate filings is provided in Note 17.

State Regulation

New Mexico 2015 Rate Case – On September 28, 2016, the NMPRC issued an order that authorized PNM to implement an increase in base non-fuel rates of $61.2 million for New Mexico retail customers, effective for bills sent after September 30, 2016. This order was on PNM’s application for a general increase in retail electric rates (the “NM 2015 Rate Case”) filed in August 2015. PNM’s application requested an increase in base non-fuel revenues of $121.5 million based on a future test year (“FTY”) beginning October 1, 2015. The primary drivers of the revenue deficiency were infrastructure investments and declines in forecasted energy sales due to successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors. PNM also proposed changes to rate design to provide fairer pricing across rate classes and better align cost recovery with cost causation.

Following public hearings, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued a recommended decision in August 2016 proposing an increase in non-fuel revenues of $41.3 million (the “August 2016 RD”). The NMPRC’s September 26, 2016 order approved many aspects of the August 2016 RD, including the determination that PNM was imprudent in purchasing 64.1 MW of previously leased capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, extending the leases for 114.6 MW of capacity of PVNGS Units 1 and 2, and installing BDT

A - 30


equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4. However, the order also made certain significant modifications to the August 2016 RD. Major components of the difference between the increase in non-fuel revenues approved in the order and PNM’s request, include:

A ROE of 9.575%, compared to the 10.5% requested by PNM
Inclusion of the January 2016 purchase of the assets underlying three leases of capacity, totaling 64.1 MW, of PVNGS Unit 2 (Note 7) at an initial rate base value of $83.7 million, compared to PNM’s request for recovery of the fair market value purchase price of $163.3 million; and disallowance of the recovery of the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW was being leased by PNM, which costs totaled $43.8 million when the order was issued
Disallowance of the recovery of any future contributions for PVNGS decommissioning costs related to the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 purchased in January 2016 and the 114.6 MW of the leased capacity in PVNGS Units 1 and 2 that were extended for eight years beginning January 15, 2015 and 2016 (Note 7)
Disallowance of recovery of the costs associated with converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT, which is required by the NSR permit for SJGS (Note 16), but allows recovery of avoided operating and maintenance expenses of $0.3 million annually related to BDT; PNM’s share of the costs of installing the BDT equipment was $52.3 million, $40.0 million of which PNM requested be included in rate base in the NM 2015 Rate Case
Disallowance of recovery of $4.5 million of amounts recorded as regulatory assets and deferred charges

The order continued the renewable energy rider and approved certain aspects of PNM’s proposals regarding rate design, but did not approve certain other rate design proposals or PNM’s request for a revenue decoupling pilot program. The order also proposed changes in the methods of recovering certain costs through PNM’s FPPAC and renewable energy rider. The order credited retail customers with 100% of the New Mexico jurisdictional portion of revenues from “refined coal” (a third-party pre-treatment process) at SJGS. The order approved PNM’s proposals for revised depreciation rates (with certain exceptions), and the ratemaking treatment of the “prepaid pension asset.”

On September 30, 2016, PNM filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court regarding the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case. On October 26, 2016, PNM filed a statement of issues related to its appeal with the NM Supreme Court, which stated PNM is appealing the NMPRC’s determination that PNM was imprudent in the actions taken to purchase the previously leased 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, extending the leases for 114.6 MW of capacity of PVNGS Units 1 and 2, and installing BDT equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4. Specifically, PNM’s statement indicated it is appealing the following elements of the NMPRC’s order:

Disallowance of recovery of the full fair market value purchase price of the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 purchased in January 2016
Disallowance of the recovery of the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW of capacity was leased by PNM
Disallowance of recovery of future contributions for PVNGS decommissioning attributable to 64.1 MW of purchased capacity and the 114.6 MW of capacity under the extended leases
Disallowance of recovery of the costs of converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT

NEE, NMIEC, and ABCWUA filed notices of cross appeal to PNM’s appeal. The issues that are being appealed by the various cross-appellants are:

The NMPRC allowing PNM to recover the costs of the lease extensions for the 114.6 MW of PVNGS Units 1 and 2 and any of the purchase price for the 64.1 MW in PVNGS Unit 2
The NMPRC allowing PNM to recover the costs incurred under the new coal supply contract for Four Corners
The revised method to collect PNM’s fuel and purchased power costs under the FPPAC
The final rate design
The NMPRC allowing PNM to include the “prepaid pension asset” in rate base

NEE subsequently filed a motion for a partial stay of the order at the NM Supreme Court, which was denied. The NM Supreme Court stated that the court’s intent was to request that PNM reimburse ratepayers for any amount overcharged should the cross-appellants prevail on the merits.

On February 17, 2017, PNM filed its Brief in Chief, and pursuant to the court’s rules, the briefing schedule was completed on July 21, 2017. Oral argument at the NM Supreme Court was held on October 30, 2017. Although appeals of regulatory actions of the NMPRC have a priority at the NM Supreme Court under New Mexico law, there is no required time frame for the court to act on the appeals.


A - 31


PNM evaluated the accounting consequences of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case and the likelihood of being successful on the issues it is appealing in the NM Supreme Court as required under GAAP. The evaluation indicated it is reasonably possible that PNM will be successful on the issues it is appealing. If the NM Supreme Court rules in PNM’s favor on some or all of the issues, those issues would be remanded back to the NMPRC for further action. PNM originally estimated that it would take a minimum of 15 months, from the date PNM filed its appeal, for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues. During such time, the rates specified in the order will remain in effect. Accordingly, at September 30, 2016, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $11.3 million, representing 15 months of capital cost recovery for the period October 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017 on its investments that the order disallowed, as well as amounts recorded as regulatory assets and deferred charges that the order disallowed and which PNM did not challenge in its appeal. The NM Supreme Court did not render a decision on the case by December 31, 2017, the end of the originally estimated 15 month period. As of December 31, 2017, PNM updated its evaluation of the issues it is appealing in the NM Supreme Court. Although PNM cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, PNM’s evaluation continues to indicate it is reasonably possible that PNM will be successful on the issues it is appealing and that it will take a minimum of an additional seven months from December 31, 2017 for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues. On December 31, 2017, PNM recorded an additional pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $3.1 million, representing seven months of capital cost recovery on its investments the order disallowed. Additional losses will be recorded if the estimated time frame for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues is further extended.

PNM continues to believe that the disallowed investments, which are the subject of PNM’s appeal, were prudently incurred and that PNM is entitled to full recovery of those investments through the ratemaking process. If PNM’s appeal is unsuccessful, PNM would record additional pre-tax losses related to any unsuccessful issues. The December 31, 2017 book values of PNM’s investments that the order disallowed, after considering the losses recorded through December 31, 2017, were $75.3 million for the 64.1 MW of purchased capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, $39.1 million for the PVNGS Unit 2 disallowed capital improvements, and $49.4 million for the BDT equipment.

PNM does not believe that the likelihood of the cross-appeals being successful is probable. However, if the NM Supreme Court were to overturn all of the issues subject to the cross-appeals and, upon remand, the NMPRC did not provide any cost recovery of those items, PNM would write-off all of the costs to acquire the assets previously leased under three leases aggregating 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2 capacity, totaling $151.1 million at December 31, 2017 (which amount includes $75.3 million that is the subject of PNM’s appeal discussed above) after considering the losses recorded through December 31, 2017. The impacts of not recovering costs for the lease extensions, new coal supply contract for Four Corners, and “prepaid pension asset” in rate base would be recognized in future periods reflecting that rates charged to customers would not recover those costs as they are incurred. The outcomes of the cross-appeals regarding the FPPAC and rate design should not have a financial impact to PNM.

New Mexico 2016 Rate Case – On December 7, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for a general increase in retail electric rates (the “NM 2016 Rate Case”). PNM did not include any of the costs disallowed in the NM 2015 Rate Case that are at issue in its pending appeal to the NM Supreme Court. Key aspects of PNM’s request in the NM 2016 Rate Case were:

An increase in base non-fuel revenues of $99.2 million
Based on a FTY beginning January 1, 2018 (the NMPRC’s rules specify that a FTY is a 12 month period beginning up to 13 months after the filing of a rate case application)
A ROE of 10.125%
Drivers of revenue deficiency
Implementation of the modifications in PNM’s resource portfolio, which were previously approved by the NMPRC as part of the SJGS regional haze compliance plan (see below and Note 16)
Infrastructure investments, including environmental upgrades at Four Corners
Declines in forecasted energy sales due to successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors
Updates in the FERC/retail jurisdictional allocations
Proposed changes to rate design to establish fair and equitable pricing across rate classes and to better align cost recovery with cost causation
Increased customer and demand charges
A “lost contribution to fixed cost” mechanism applicable to residential and small commercial customers to address the regulatory disincentive associated with PNM’s energy efficiency programs

After NMPRC ordered settlement discussions were held, PNM and representatives of several intervenors reached an agreement on the parameters for a settlement in this proceeding. In May 2017, PNM and thirteen intervenors (the “Signatories”) entered into a comprehensive stipulation. On May 12, 2017, the Hearing Examiners issued an order rejecting the stipulation in its then current form and allowing the Signatories to revise the stipulation. On May 23, 2017, the Signatories filed a revised

A - 32


stipulation that addressed the issues raised by the Hearing Examiners in their order. NEE was the sole party opposing the revised stipulation. The terms of the revised stipulation included:

A revenue increase totaling $62.3 million, with an initial increase of $32.3 million beginning January 1, 2018 and the remaining increase beginning January 1, 2019
A ROE of 9.575%
Full recovery of PNM’s investment in SCRs at Four Corners with a debt-only return
An agreement not to seek to adjust non-fuel base rate changes to be effective prior to January 1, 2020
An agreement to adjust the January 2019 increase for certain changes in federal corporate tax laws and to true-up PNM’s cost of debt
Returning to customers over a three-year period the benefit of the reduction in the New Mexico corporate income tax rate to the extent attributable to PNM’s retail operations
PNM would withdraw its proposal for a “lost contribution to fixed cost” mechanism with the issue to be addressed in a future docket
PNM would perform a cost benefit analysis in its 2020 IRP of the impact of a possible early exit from Four Corners in 2024 and 2028

A public hearing on the revised stipulation was held in August 2017. On October 31, 2017, the Hearing Examiners issued a Certification of Stipulation recommending modifications to the revised stipulation that would identify PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners as imprudent, not allow PNM to collect a debt or equity return on $148.1 million of investments in SCRs and other projects at Four Corners, and to temporarily disallow recovery of $36.8 of PNM’s projected capital improvements at SJGS. On December 20, 2017, the NMPRC issued anorder approving the Certification of Stipulation with certain changes, which included requiring the impacts of changes related to the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate and PNM’s cost of debt be implemented effective January 1, 2018 rather than January 1, 2019 and deferring further consideration regarding the prudency of PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners to a future proceeding.

On December 28, 2017, PNM filed a motion requesting rehearing and asking the NMPRC to vacate their December 20, 2017 order. Several signatories to the revised stipulation filed a separate motion for rehearing asking that the NMPRC approve the revised stipulation without modification. NEE filed a response urging the NMPRC to reject PNM’s motion. On January 3, 2018, the NMPRC vacated its December 20, 2017 order and granted the motions for rehearing, which was held on January 10, 2018. The NMPRC issued an order dated January 10, 2018 that approved the Certification of Stipulation with certain changes, which included allowing PNM to recover its $148.1 million of investments in SCR and other projects at Four Corners with a debt-only return (but maintaining the recommended disallowance of an equity return), deferring further consideration regarding the prudency of PNM’s decisions to continue its participation in Four Corners to PNM’s next general rate case, requiring the impacts of changes related to the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate and PNM’s cost of debt be implemented in 2018 rather than January 1, 2019, and requiring PNM to reduce its requested $62.3 million increase in non-fuel revenues by $9.1 million.

On January 16, 2018, PNM requested clarifying changes to that order to adjust the $9.1 million reduction to $4.4 million, asserting that $4.7 million of the reduction was duplicative. PNM’s request was approved by the NMPRC. After implementation of changes to the federal corporate income tax rate and cost of debt, the order results in a net increase to PNM’s non-fuel revenue requirement of $10.3 million. PNM implemented 50% of the approved increase for service rendered, rather than bills rendered, on or after February 1, 2018 and will implement the rest of the increase for service rendered on or after January 1, 2019. GAAP requires PNM to recognize a loss reflecting that it will earn a debt-only return on $148.1 million of investments at Four Corners rather than a full return. Accordingly, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $27.9 million as of December 31, 2017.

On February 7, 2018, NEE filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court asking the court to review the NMPRC’s decisions in the NM 2016 Rate Case. The notice does not set forth the basis of the appeal, which, as required by the court’s rules, is to be filed by March 9, 2018. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Advanced Metering In September 2011, TNMP began its deployment of advanced meters for homes and businesses across its service area. TNMP completed its mass deployment in 2016 and has installed more than 242,000 advanced meters. As part of the State of Texas’ long-term initiative to create an advanced electric grid, installation of advanced meters will ultimately give consumers more data about their energy consumption and help them make more informed decisions. In addition, TNMP has completed installation of a new outage management system that will leverage capabilities of the advanced metering infrastructure to enhance TNMP’s responsiveness to outages.

On February 26, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC requesting approval of a project to replace its existing customer metering equipment with Advanced Metering Infrastructure (“AMI”). The application also asks the NMPRC to authorize the recovery, in future ratemaking proceedings, of the cost of the project, currently estimated to be $95.1 million, as well as to

A - 33


approve the recovery of the remaining undepreciated investment in existing metering equipment estimated to be approximately $33 million and the costs of customer education and severance for any affected employees. During a March 2017 hearing, it was identified that the proposed meter contractor may not have complied with certain New Mexico contractor licensing requirements. PNM subsequently filed testimony regarding that matter as ordered by the Hearing Examiner and requested a new procedural schedule to allow it to issue a new RFP for contracting work related to the meter installation and to update its cost-benefit analysis. An additional hearing was held in October 2017. PNM does not intend to proceed with the AMI project unless the NMPRC approves the entire application. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

PVNGS Unit 3 Through December 31, 2017, PNM’s 134 MW interest in PVNGS Unit 3 was excluded from NMPRC jurisdictional rates. The power generated from that interest was sold into the wholesale market and any earnings or losses were realized by shareholders. As part of compliance with the requirements for BART at SJGS discussed below, the NMPRC approved including PVNGS Unit 3 as a jurisdictional resource in the determination of rates charged to customers in New Mexico beginning in 2018. PVNGS Unit 3 is included as a jurisdictional resource in PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case (Note 17).

Rate Riders and Interim Rate Relief – The PUCT has approved mechanisms that allow TNMP to recover capital invested in transmission and distribution projects without having to file a general rate case. This permits more timely recovery of investments. The PUCT has also approved riders that allow TNMP to recover amounts related to AMS, energy efficiency, third-party transmission costs, and the CTC. The NMPRC has approved PNM recovering fuel costs through the FPPAC, as well as rate riders for renewable energy and energy efficiency that allow for more timely recovery of investments and improve PNM’s ability to earn its authorized return.

TNMP General Rate Case – TNMP’s last general rate case was filed in 2010 with new rates becoming effective on February 1, 2011. In connection with TNMP’s deployment of its AMS, TNMP has committed to file a general rate case no later than September 1, 2018. TNMP currently anticipates filing its general rate case in May 2018 using a 2017 calendar year test period. New rates are anticipated to become effective during January 2019.

FERC Regulation

Rates PNM charges wholesale transmission customers and wholesale generation services customers are subject to traditional rate regulation by FERC. For a number of years, PNM allocated a portion of its generation assets to serve FERC wholesale generation services customers. The low natural gas price environment resulted in market prices for power being substantially lower than what PNM is able to offer wholesale generation customers under the cost of service model that FERC requires PNM to use.  As a result of this change in market conditions, PNM had not been earning an adequate return on the assets required to serve wholesale generation contracts. Consequently, PNM decided to stop pursuing wholesale generation contracts. Currently, PNM has no full-requirements wholesale generation customers.

Rates charged to wholesale electric transmission are based on a formula rate mechanism pursuant to which rates for wholesale transmission service are calculated annually in accordance with an approved formula. The formula includes updating cost of service components, including investment in plant and operating expenses, based on information contained in PNM’s annual financial report filed with FERC, as well as including projected large transmission capital projects to be placed into service in the following year. The projections included are subject to true-up in the following year formula rate. Certain items, including changes to return on equity and depreciation rates, require a separate filing to be made with FERC before being included in the formula rate.

Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. – PNM had a PSA, which contained an expiration date in 2035, to supply power to NEC that was approved by FERC in April 2013. On April 8, 2015, NEC filed a petition for a declaratory order requesting that FERC find that NEC could purchase an unlimited amount of power and energy from third party supplier(s) under the PSA. PNM intervened, requesting that FERC deny NEC’s petition. FERC set the matter for a public hearing concerning the parties’ intent with regard to certain provisions of the PSA and held the hearing in abeyance to provide time for settlement judge procedures.

On October 29, 2015, PNM and NEC entered into, and filed with FERC, a settlement agreement, which FERC approved in January 2016. Under the agreement, PNM served all of NEC’s load through December 31, 2015 at rates that were substantially consistent with those provided under the PSA. In 2016, PNM served all of NEC’s load at reduced demand and energy rates from those under the PSA. The PSA terminated on December 31, 2016. In 2017, PNM served 10 MW of NEC’s load under a short-term coordination tariff at a rate lower than provided under the PSA, but higher than prices available under short-term market rates at the time of the settlement. In 2017, 2016 and 2015, revenues from NEC were $4.5 million, $20.0 million, and $27.1 million. Although the settlement agreement negatively impacted results of operations in 2017, PNM mitigated these impacts through market sales of power that would have been sold to NEC, reductions in fuel and transmission expenses, and other measures. PNM’s NM

A - 34


2016 Rate Case discussed above reflects a reallocation of costs among regulatory jurisdictions reflecting the termination of the contract to serve NEC.
Delivering Above Industry-Average Earnings and Dividend Growth
PNMR’s strategic goal to deliver above industry-average earnings and dividend growth enables investors to realize the value of their investment in the Company’s business. PNMR’s current target is 6% earnings growth for the period 2018 through 2021. Earnings growth is based on ongoing earnings, which is a non-GAAP financial measure that excludes from GAAP earnings certain non-recurring, infrequent, and other items that are not indicative of fundamental changes in the earnings capacity of the Company’s operations. PNMR uses ongoing earnings to evaluate the operations of the Company and to establish goals, including those used for certain aspects of incentive compensation, for management and employees.

PNMR targets a dividend payout ratio of 50% to 60% of its ongoing earnings. PNMR expects to provide above industry-average dividend growth in the near-term and to manage the payout ratio to meet its long-term target. The Board will continue
to evaluate the dividend on an annual basis, considering sustainability and growth, capital planning, and industry standards. The Board approved the following increases in the indicated annual common stock dividend:
Approval DatePercent Increase
February 201216%
February 201314%
December 201312%
December 20148%
December 201510%
December 201610%
December 20179%

Maintaining Solid Investment Grade Credit Ratings

The Company is committed to maintaining solid investment grade credit ratings in order to reduce the cost of debt financing and to help ensure access to credit markets, when required. See the subheading Liquidity included in the full discussion of Liquidity and Capital Resources below for the specific credit ratings for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP. Currently, all of the credit ratings issued by both Moody’s and S&P on the Company’s debt are investment grade. In June 2017, Moody’s changed the outlook for PNMR and PNM from stable to positive while maintaining a stable outlook for TNMP. In January 2018, S&P changed the outlook for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP from stable to negative.

Business and Strategic Focus

PNMR strives to create enduring value for customers, communities, and shareholders. PNMR’s strategy and decision-making are focused on safely providing reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible power. The Company works closely with customers, stakeholders, legislators, and regulators to ensure that resource plans and infrastructure investments benefit from robust public dialogue and balance the diverse needs of our communities. Equally important is the focus of PNMR’s utilities on customer satisfaction and community engagement.

Reliable and Affordable Power
PNMR and its utilities are aware of the important roles they play in enhancing economic vitality in their service territories. Management believes that maintaining strong and modern electric infrastructure is critical to ensuring reliability and supporting economic growth. When contemplating expanding or relocating their operations, businesses consider energy affordability and reliability to be important factors. PNM and TNMP strive to balance service affordability with infrastructure investment to maintain a high level of electric reliability and to deliver a superior customer experience. Investing in PNM’s and TNMP’s infrastructure is critical to ensuring reliability and meeting future energy needs. Both utilities have long-established records of providing customers with reliable electric service.

Utility Plant and Strategic Investments

Utility Plant Investments – During the 2015 to 2017 period, PNM and TNMP together invested $1,552.0 million in utility plant, including substations, power plants, nuclear fuel, and transmission and distribution systems. PNM completed the 40 MW natural gas-fired La Luz peaking generating station located near Belen, New Mexico in December 2015. PNM also completed installation of SNCR and BDT equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4 in early 2016 and the addition of 40 MW of PNM-owned solar

A - 35


PV facilities in 2015. In addition, on January 15, 2016, PNM completed the $163.3 million acquisition of 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 that had previously been leased to PNM.

Strategic Investments – In 2017, PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners created NM Renewable Development, LLC (“NMRD”) to pursue the acquisition, development, and ownership of renewable energy generation projects, primarily in the state of New Mexico. Abundant renewable resources, large tracts of affordable land, and strong government and community support make New Mexico a favorable location for renewable generation. New Mexico has the 2nd highest technical potential of the 48 contiguous states for utility scale solar photovoltaics as noted in 2015 by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, while New Mexico is 6th for technical potential for land-based wind. PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners each have a 50% ownership interest in NMRD. Through NMRD, PNMR anticipates being able to provide additional renewable generation solutions to customers within and surrounding its regulated jurisdictions through partnering with a subsidiary of one of the United States’ largest electric utilities. The formation of this joint venture provides a more efficient use of PNMR’s capital to support new renewable investment opportunities while maintaining the necessary capital to support investments required by PNM’s regulated jurisdictions. NMRD’s current renewable energy capacity under contract is 31.8 MW. This includes 11.8 MW of solar PV facilities currently in operation, consisting of 10 MW required to supply energy to a new data center in PNM’s service territory (Note 17) and 1.8 MW to supply energy to Columbus Electric Cooperative located in southwest New Mexico. At December 31, 2017, NMRD also had 20 MW of solar PV facilities under construction, which will be completed in mid-2018 and will also be used to supply the new data center. NMRD is actively exploring opportunities for additional renewable projects. In addition, NMRD will evaluate potential bid opportunities for future renewable projects, including large-scale projects to serve future data center and other customer needs.

Integrated Resource Plan

NMPRC rules require that investor-owned utilities file an IRP every three years. The IRP is required to cover a 20-year planning period and contain an action plan covering the first four years of that period. PNM filed its 2014 IRP on July 1, 2014. The four-year action plan was consistent with the replacement resources identified in PNM’s application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. PNM indicated that it planned to meet its anticipated energy demand with a combination of additional renewable energy resources, energy efficiency, and natural gas-fired facilities.

PNM filed its 2017 IRP on July 3, 2017. Under the NMPRC’s order concerning SJGS’ compliance with the BART requirements of the CAA discussed in Note 16, PNM is required to make a filing in 2018 to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after June 30, 2022. The 2017 IRP analyzed several scenarios utilizing assumptions that PNM continues service from its SJGS capacity beyond mid-2022 and that PNM retires its capacity after mid-2022. Key findings of the 2017 IRP include:

Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 after the expiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements would provide long-term cost savings for PNM’s customers
PNM exiting its ownership interest in Four Corners after its current coal supply agreement expires in 2031 would also provide long-term cost savings for customers
The best mix of new resources to replace the retired coal generation would include solar energy and flexible natural gas-fired peaking capacity; the mix could include energy storage if the economics support it and wind energy provided additional transmission capacity becomes available
Significant increases in future wind energy supplies will likely require new transmission capacity to be built from eastern New Mexico to PNM’s service territory
PNM should retain the currently leased capacity in PVNGS, which would avoid replacement with carbon-emitting generation
PNM should continue to develop and implement energy efficiency and demand management programs
PNM should assess the costs and benefits of participating in the California Energy Imbalance Market
PNM should analyze its current Reeves Generating Station to consider possible technology improvements to phase out the older generators and replace them with new, more flexible supplies or energy storage

Several parties filed protests to the 2017 IRP. The issues addressed in the protests include PNM’s future interest in SJGS, Four Corners, and PVNGS and the timing of future procurement of renewable resources. The 2017 IRP is not a final determination of PNM’s future generation portfolio. Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS capacity and exiting Four Corners would require NMPRC approval of abandonment filings, which PNM would make at appropriate times in the future. Likewise, NMPRC approval of new generation resources through CCN filings would be required. PNM cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the 2017 IRP process or whether the NMPRC will approve subsequent filings that would encompass actions to implement the conclusions of the 2017 IRP.

A - 36


Environmentally Responsible Power
PNMR has a long-standing record of environmental stewardship. PNM’s environmental focus has been in three key areas:

Developing strategies to meet regional haze rules at the coal-fired SJGS as cost-effectively as possible while providing broad environmental benefits that also demonstrate progress in addressing CO2 emissions from existing power plants
Preparing to meet New Mexico’s increasing renewable energy requirements as cost-effectively as possible
Increasing energy efficiency participation

PNMR’s Sustainability Portal provides key environmental and sustainability information related to PNM’s and TNMP’s operations and is available at http://www.pnmresources.com/about-us/sustainability-portal.aspx. The portal also contains a Climate Change Report, which outlines plans to be coal-free by 2031 (subject to regulatory approval). This could enable an 87% reduction in CO2 emissions in 2040 compared to 2012 levels. This is a significantly greater reduction than that required of New Mexico under EPA’s Clean Power Plan.

SJGS

Regional Haze Rule Compliance Plan – In December 2015, PNM received NMPRC approval for the plan to comply with the EPA regional haze rule at SJGS that minimizes the cost impact to customers while still achieving broad environmental benefits. Under the approved plan, the installation of SNCRs on SJGS Units 1 and 4 was completed in early 2016 and Units 2 and 3 were retired in December 2017. The plan provides for similar visibility improvements, but at a lower cost to PNM customers than a previous EPA ruling that would have required the installation of more expensive SCRs on all four units at SJGS. The plan has the added advantage of reducing other emissions in addition to NOx, including SO2, particulate matter, CO2, and mercury, as well as reducing water usage. Additional information is contained in Note 16.

Under the key provisions of the order approving the compliance plan, PNM:

Retired SJGS Units 2 and 3 (PNM’s ownership interest was 418 MW) in December 2017 and will recover, over 20 years, 50% ($125.5 million) of their undepreciated net book value at that date and earn a regulated return on those costs
Acquired an additional 132 MW in SJGS Unit 4 under an approved CCN, with an initial book value of zero plus SNCR costs and whatever portion of BDT costs the NMPRC determines to be reasonable and prudent to be allowed for recovery in rates (an aggregate of $20.7 million) (see New Mexico Rate Cases above and Note 17)
Was granted a CCN for 134 MW of PVNGS Unit 3 with an initial rate base value equal to the book value as of December 31, 2017 ($154.9 million)
Acquired 65 MW of SJGS Unit 4 as merchant utility plant, which will not be included in rates charged to retail customers
Will accelerate recovery of SNCR costs on SJGS Units 1 and 4 so that the costs are fully recovered by July 1, 2022
Is required to make a NMPRC filing in 2018 to determine the extent that SJGS should continue serving PNM’s customers’ needs after mid-2022
Will acquire and retire one MWh of RECs that include a zero-CO2 emission attribute beginning January 1, 2020 for every MWh produced by 197 MW of coal-fired generation from PNM’s ownership share of SJGS (the cost of these RECs would be capped at $7.0 million per year and recovered in rates)
Did not recover approximately $20 million of increased operations and maintenance expenses and other costs incurred in connection with CAA compliance

At December 31, 2015, PNM recorded pre-tax losses aggregating $165.7 million to reflect the write-off of the 50% of the estimated December 31, 2017 net book value of SJGS Units 2 and 3 that will not be recovered, the other unrecoverable costs, and the increase in the estimated liability recorded for coal mine reclamation resulting from the new coal mine reclamation arrangement entered into in conjunction with the new coal supply agreement (“SJGS CSA”). PNM recorded additional pre-tax losses of $3.7 million in 2016 and reversed previously recorded losses of $4.0 million in 2017 resulting from revised estimates of these items. Additional information about the SJGS CSA is discussed below and in Note 16.

On January 14, 2016, NEE filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court of the NMPRC’s December 2015 order. The NM Supreme Court has taken no action on the appeal and there is no required time frame for the court to act on the appeal. On March 31, 2016, NEE filed a complaint against PNM with the NMPRC regarding the financing provided by NM Capital to facilitate the sale of SJCC. The complaint alleges that PNM failed to comply with its discovery obligation in the SJGS abandonment case and requests the NMPRC investigate whether the financing transactions could adversely affect PNM’s ability to provide electric service to its retail customers. PNM responded to the complaint on May 4, 2016. The NMPRC has taken no action on this matter.


A - 37


SJGS Ownership Restructuring In connection with the proposed retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3, some of the SJGS participants expressed a desire to exit their ownership in the plant. As a result, the SJGS participants negotiated a restructuring of the ownership in SJGS and addressed the obligations of the exiting participants for plant decommissioning, mine reclamation, environmental matters, and certain future operating costs, among other items.

The San Juan Project Restructuring Agreement (“SJGS RA”) sets forth the agreement among the SJGS owners regarding ownership restructuring. Key provisions of the SJGS RA include:

Capacity acquisition – On December 31, 2017, PNM was to acquire 132 MW and PNMR Development was to acquire 65 MW of the exiting owners’ capacity in SJGS Unit 4. PNMR Development assigned the rights and obligations related to the 65 MW to PNM effective on December 31, 2017, to facilitate dispatch of power from that capacity. As ordered by the NMPRC, PNM will treat the 65 MW as merchant utility plant that will be excluded from retail rates. In anticipation of the transfer of ownership, PNM entered into agreements to sell the power from 36 MW of that capacity to a third party at a fixed price for the period January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2022.
Coal inventory – The SJGS RA also sets forth the terms under which PNM acquired the coal inventory of the exiting SJGS participants as of January 1, 2016 and supplied coal to the exiting participants during the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017, which arrangement provided economic benefits that were passed on to PNM’s customers through the FPPAC.
Coal supply – The SJGS RA became effective contemporaneously with the effectiveness of the new SJGS CSA. The effectiveness of the new SJGS CSA was dependent on the closing of the purchase of the existing coal mine operation by a new mine operator, which occurred on January 31, 2016. In support of the closing of the mine purchase and to facilitate PNM customer savings, NM Capital, a wholly-owned subsidiary of PNMR, provided funding of $125.0 million to Westmoreland San Juan, LLC (“WSJ”), a ring-fenced, bankruptcy-remote, special-purpose entity that is a subsidiary of Westmoreland Coal Company to finance the purchase price. NM Capital was able to provide the $125.0 million financing to WSJ by first entering into a $125.0 million term loan agreement with a commercial bank. PNMR guarantees NM Capital’s obligations to the bank. The Westmoreland Loan matures on February 1, 2021 and had an initial interest rate of 7.25% plus LIBOR, which escalates over time. Such rate is 12.25% plus LIBOR for the period from February 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019. WSJ must pay principal and interest quarterly to NM Capital in accordance with an amortization schedule. As of February 20, 2018, the balance of the Westmoreland Loan was $51.0 million.
Coal mine reclamation – Under the terms of the SJGS CSA, PNM and the other SJGS owners are obligated to compensate SJCC for all reclamation costs associated with the supply of coal from the San Juan mine. In connection with certain mining permits relating to the operation of the San Juan mine, SJCC is required to post reclamation bonds, which currently aggregate $118.7 million, with the NMMMD. PNMR has arrangements under which a bank has issued $30.3 million in letters of credit to facilitate posting of the required reclamation bonds. See Note 16.
Other SJGS Environmental Matters In addition to the regional haze rule, SJGS is required to comply with other rules currently being developed or implemented that affect coal-fired generating units, including rules regarding GHG under Section 111(d) of the CAA. Implementation of the Clean Power Plan, which was published by EPA in October 2015, is currently stayed by order of the US Supreme Court pending further proceedings before the DC Circuit. Oral argument was heard by the DC Circuit in September 2016, but the court has taken no action. On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Energy Independence.  The order sets out two general policies: promote clean and safe development of energy resources, while avoiding regulatory burdens, and ensure electricity is affordable, reliable, safe, secure, and clean.  The order rescinds various actions undertaken by the previous administration and directs the EPA Administrator to review and if appropriate suspend, revise, or rescind the Clean Power Plan, as well as other environmental regulations. On October 10, 2017, EPA issued a proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan based on a legal interpretation of the CAA under which the Clean Power Plan exceeds EPA’s statutory authority. EPA published the proposed repeal rule on October 16, 2017 and is accepting public comments until April 26, 2018. In addition, EPA published an advanced NOPR on December 28, 2017 to take comment on whether EPA should adopt a rule to replace the Clean Power Plan and what such a replacement rule might include, for which public comments were due February 26, 2018.
PNM estimates that implementation of the BART plan at SJGS, as well as potentially exiting ownership in the remaining units at SJGS (as well as Four Corners), as discussed above, should provide significant steps for New Mexico to meet its ultimate compliance with Section 111(d) under the Clean Power Plan or any replacement rule. PNM is unable to predict the impact of this rule on its fossil-fueled generation.

Because of environmental upgrades completed in 2009, SJGS has a mercury removal efficiency of 98% and mercury emissions are well below the mercury limit imposed by EPA in the 2011 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Major environmental upgrades on each of the four units at SJGS have significantly reduced emissions of NOx, SO2, particulate matter, and mercury.

A - 38


Between 2006 and 2017, SJGS has reduced NOx emissions by 41%, SO2 by 70%, particulate matter by 61%, and mercury by 98%.

A - 39


Renewable Energy
PNM’s renewable procurement strategy includes utility-owned solar capacity, as well as wind and geothermal energy purchased under PPAs. As of December 31, 2017, PNM had 107 MW of utility-owned solar capacity. In addition, PNM purchases power from a customer-owned distributed solar generation program that had an installed capacity of 81.6 MW at December 31, 2017. PNM also owns the 500 KW PNM Prosperity Energy Storage Project, which uses advanced batteries to store solar power and dispatch the energy either during high-use periods or when solar production is limited. The project was one of the first combinations of battery storage and PV energy in the nation and involved extensive research and development of advanced grid concepts. The facility also was the nation’s first solar storage facility fully integrated into a utility’s power grid. Since 2003, PNM has purchased the output from New Mexico Wind, a 204 MW wind facility, and began purchasing the output of Red Mesa Wind, an existing 102 MW wind energy center, on January 1, 2015. PNM has a 20-year agreement to purchase energy from the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility built near Lordsburg, New Mexico. The geothermal facility, which has a current capacity of 4 MW, began providing power to PNM in January 2014. PNM also purchases RECs as necessary to meet the RPS.
The majority of these renewable resources are key means for PNM to meet the RPS and related regulations that require PNM to achieve prescribed levels of energy sales from renewable sources, if that can be accomplished without exceeding the RCT limit set by the NMPRC. PNM makes renewable procurements consistent with the plans approved by the NMPRC. PNM’s 2017 renewable energy procurement plan meets RPS and diversity requirements for 2017 and 2018 using existing resources and does not propose any significant new procurements. The NMPRC approved the plan on November 23, 2016. On June 1, 2017, PNM filed its 2018 renewable energy procurement plan. PNM requested approval to procure an additional 80 GWh in 2019 and 105 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of New Mexico Wind; approval to procure an additional 55 GWh in 2019 and 77 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal; approval to procure 50 MW of new solar facilities to be constructed beginning in 2018; continuation of customer REC purchase programs; and other purchases of RECs to ensure annual compliance with the RPS. A public hearing on the application was held in September 2017. On October 17, 2017, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision that PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan be approved by the NMPRC, except for the re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal and PNM’s request to procure 50 MW of new solar facilities. The Hearing Examiner recommended that the PPA for the output of energy from Lightning Dock Geothermal be terminated effective January 1, 2018. The Hearing Examiner also recommended that PNM be required to issue another all-renewables RFP allowing developers to utilize PNM-owned sites to construct facilities, the output from which facilities would be sold to PNM through PPAs. PNM disagreed with the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and filed exceptions contesting the Hearing Examiner’s proposals. On November 15, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order approving PNM’s plan and rejecting the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations. NMIEC filed an appeal with the NM Supreme Court objecting to the fuel allocation methodology. NEE filed a motion to intervene and cross-appeal objecting to the approval of the 50 MW of new solar facilities. PNM filed a motion to intervene. The NM Supreme Court granted the motions to intervene. NMIEC filed a motion for a partial stay and PNM filed a response opposing the request. A briefing schedule has not been determined. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

In late 2017, PNM entered into three separate 25-year PPAs to purchase renewable energy and RECs to be used by PNM to supply additional renewable power to Facebook, Inc. These PPAs are subject to NMPRC approval and PNM made a filing requesting approval on January 17, 2018 (Note 17). These PPAs include the purchase of the power and RECs from a 50 MW wind project to be operational at December 31, 2018, a 166 MW wind project to be operational in November 2020, and a 50 MW solar project to be operational in December 2021.
PNM will continue to procure renewable resources while balancing the impact to customers’ electricity costs in order to meet New Mexico’s escalating RPS requirements.
Energy Efficiency
Energy efficiency also plays a significant role in helping to keep customers’ electricity costs low while meeting their energy needs. PNM’s and TNMP’s energy efficiency and load management portfolios continue to achieve robust results. In 2017, annual energy saved as a result of PNM’s portfolio of energy efficiency programs was approximately 78 GWh. This is equivalent to the annual consumption of approximately 11,500 homes in PNM’s service territory. PNM’s load management and annual energy efficiency programs also help lower peak demand requirements. TNMP’s energy efficiency programs in 2017 resulted in energy savings totaling an estimated 21 GWh. This is equivalent to the annual consumption of approximately 2,300 homes in TNMP’s service territory. In April 2016 and again in April 2017, TNMP was recognized by Energy Star for TNMP’s successful energy efficiency efforts. TNMP received the “Partner of the Year Energy Efficiency Delivery Award” for its High-Performance Homes Program.


A - 40


Water Conservation and Solid Waste Reduction

PNM continues its efforts to reduce the amount of fresh water used to make electricity (about 20% more efficient than in 2007).  Continued growth in PNM’s fleet of solar and wind energy sources, energy efficiency programs, and innovative uses of gray water and air-cooling technology have contributed to this reduction.  Water usage will continue to decline as PNM substitutes less fresh-water-intensive generation resources to replace SJGS Units 2 and 3 starting in 2018, when water consumption at that plant will be reduced by around 50%.  Focusing on responsible stewardship of New Mexico’s scarce water resources improves PNM’s water-resilience in the face of persistent drought and ever-increasing demands for water to spur the growth of New Mexico’s economy. In addition to the above areas of focus, the Company is working to reduce the amount of solid waste going to landfills through increased recycling and reduction of waste. In 2017, 18 of the Company’s 23 facilities met the solid waste diversion goal of a 60% diversion rate, while recycling at least the same number of waste streams as 2016. The Company expects to continue to do well in this area in the future.

Customer, Stakeholder, and Community Engagement

The Company strives to deliver a superior customer experience. Through outreach, collaboration, and various community-oriented programs, the Company has a demonstrated commitment to build productive relationships with stakeholders, including customers, community partners, regulators, intervenors, legislators, and shareholders. PNM continues to focus its efforts to enhance the customer experience through customer service improvements, including billing and payment options, strategic customer engagement, and improved communications. These efforts are supported by market research to understand the varying needs of customers, identifying and establishing valued services and programs, and proactively communicating and engaging with customers at regional and community levels.
The Company has leveraged a number of communications channels and strategic content to better serve and engage its many stakeholders. PNM’s website, www.pnm.com, provides the details of major regulatory filings, including general rate requests, as well as the background on PNM’s efforts to maintain reliability, keep prices affordable, and protect the environment. In May 2017, a chat function was added to PNM’s website to allow customers options when communicating with its customer service representatives and an online management system was launched to expedite solar interconnection applications from retail customers. The website continues to be a resource for the facts about PNM’s operations and community support efforts, including plans for building a sustainable energy future for New Mexico. In September 2016, PNMR launched a dedicated sustainability portal on its corporate website www.pnmresources.comto provide additional information regarding the Company’s environmental and other sustainability efforts. The site provides the key corporate governance and sustainability information related to the operations of PNM and TNMP. In January 2018, PNM added a Climate Change Report to this portal. The information is presented under four main headings: Environment, Social, Economic, and Governance.
With reliability being the primary role of a transmission and distribution service provider in Texas' deregulated market, TNMP continues to focus on keeping end-users updated about interruptions and to encourage customer preparation when severe weather is forecasted. In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall in the gulf coast region and TNMP worked diligently to restore power safely and efficiently for affected customers. In addition, PNMR made donations to support relief and restoration efforts in the gulf coast region. TNMP employees who were impacted by Hurricane Harvey were provided emergency crisis funds supported by the PNM Resources Foundation and other employee donations.
Local relationships and one-on-one communications remain two of the most valuable ways both PNM and TNMP connect with their stakeholders. Both companies maintain long-standing relationships with governmental representatives and key customers to ensure that these stakeholders are updated on company investments and initiatives. Key stakeholders also have dedicated Company contacts that support their important service needs.

PNMR has a long tradition of supporting the communities it serves in New Mexico and Texas. The Company demonstrates its core value of caring through the PNM Resources Foundation, corporate giving, widespread employee volunteerism, and PNM’s low-income assistance programs. In addition to the extensive engagement both PNM and TNMP have with nonprofit organizations in their communities, the PNM Resources Foundation provides more than $1 million in grant funding each year across New Mexico and Texas. These grants help nonprofits collaborate more efficiently and support community projects such as providing software coding camps to underserved youths, funding murals in neighborhoods, and by providing employee matching and volunteer grants. In 2017, “A New Century of Service” grants, which celebrate PNM’s 100th anniversary, funded 62 community projects to build a better future for local communities. In December 2017, PNM announced an additional $1.0 million in donations to the PNM Resources Foundation to support future economic and educational programs in New Mexico.

PNM provides funds to support nonprofits in New Mexico focused in the areas of economic development, education, and the environment. One of PNM’s most important outreach programs is tailored for low-income customers. In 2017, PNM hosted

A - 41


44 community events throughout its service territory to connect low-income customers with nonprofit community service providers offering support and help with such needs as water and gas utility bills, food, clothing, medical programs, and services for seniors. Additionally, through its Good Neighbor Fund, PNM provided $0.5 million of assistance with electric bills to 3,804 families in 2017 and offered financial literacy training to further support customers.

Volunteerism is an important facet of the PNMR culture. In 2017, more than 800 PNM and TNMP employees and retirees contributed approximately 10,800 volunteer hours serving their local communities. Company volunteers also actively participate on nonprofit boards, in educational, economic, and environmental forums, as well as safety seminars. PNMR employees are, in large part, responsible for the success of the Company’s customer, stakeholder, and community outreach.

Economic Factors
PNM – In 2017 and 2016, PNM experienced decreases in weather-normalized retail load of 0.9% and 0.7%, reflecting a continued sluggish economy in New Mexico. However, economic conditions in Albuquerque appear to have stabilized. The Albuquerque metro area is showing employment growth, but continues to be lower than the national average. Also, some of the previously announced successful economic development efforts, such as the selection of a site within PNM’s New Mexico service territory for a data center by Facebook, Inc., appear to have started their hiring process. There also have been some expansions of existing businesses, particularly in healthcare, education, and professional services. The economy in New Mexico continues to have mixed indicators and experience softness.

TNMP – In 2017 and 2016, TNMP experienced increases in volumetric weather normalized retail load of 1.2% and 3.0%. Most of TNMP’s industrial and larger commercial customers are billed based on their peak demand. Demand-based load, excluding retail transmission customers, increased 4.0% and 2.4% in 2017 and 2016. The Texas economy continues to grow, primarily due to its diverse base, which offsets some of the impacts of Hurricane Harvey. Because TNMP’s service territory is geographically dispersed and was largely on the edges of the storm, a smaller percentage of customers were impacted by the hurricane as compared to some other utilities. The relocation of some national and global corporate headquarters to the Dallas-Fort Worth area has led to growth in commercial customers and also contributes to growth in residential and small business customers. TNMP continues to add new transmission customers in its West Texas service territory where oil and gas production continues to grow.

Results of Operations

Net earnings attributable to PNMR were $79.9 million, or $1.00 per diluted share in the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to $116.8 million, or $1.46 per diluted share in 2016. Among other things, earnings in 2017 benefited from additional revenues due to the rate increase approved in the NM 2015 Rate Case at PNM, higher revenues under FERC formula transmission rates and new transmission customers at PNM, rate increases and increased load at TNMP, lower plant maintenance costs at PNM, higher gains on available-for-sale securities, higher AFUDC due to higher levels of construction expenditures at PNM, and excess tax benefits related to stock compensation recognized under a new accounting standard (Note 13). These increases were more than offset by decreased load at PNM, milder weather at PNM and TNMP, lower revenue from NEC at PNM, greater regulatory disallowances at PNM, increased depreciation and property taxes due to increased plant in service at PNM and TNMP and higher depreciation rates approved in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case, and lower interest income on the Westmoreland Loan and from the IRS, as well as the additional income taxes resulting from the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate (Note 11) and increased pre-tax earnings. Additional information on factors impacting results of operation for each segment is discussed under Results of Operations below.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

PNMR and PNM have revolving credit facilities that expire in October 2022. The PNMR and PNM facilities have capacities of $300.0 million and $400.0 million through October 2020 and $290.0 million and $360.0 million from November 2020 through October 2022. Both facilities provide for short-term borrowings and letters of credit. In addition, PNM has a $40.0 million revolving credit facility, which expires in December 2022, with banks having a significant presence in New Mexico and TNMP has a $75.0 million revolving credit facility, which expires in September 2022. Total availability for PNMR on a consolidated basis was $522.3 million at February 20, 2018. On February 26, 2018, PNMR Development entered into a $24.5 million revolving credit facility that matures on February 25, 2019. The Company utilizes these credit facilities and cash flows from operations to provide funds for both construction and operational expenditures. PNMR also has intercompany loan agreements with each of its subsidiaries.
PNMR projects that its consolidated capital requirements, consisting of construction expenditures and dividends, will total $3,136.8 million for 2018-2022. The construction expenditures include estimated amounts for environmental upgrades at Four Corners, 50 MW of new solar facilities included in PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan, an anticipated expansion of

A - 42


PNM’s transmission system, and the initial costs of replacement resources related to the potential shutdown of SJGS Units 1 and 4 in 2022.
In July 2017, PNM entered into the PNM 2017 Senior Unsecured Note Agreement, under which $450.0 million of the PNM 2018 SUNs are to be issued in 2018 and the proceeds will be used to repay $450.0 million of currently outstanding Senior Unsecured Notes on their maturity dates in 2018. After considering these financings, PNMR has consolidated maturities and repayments of short-term and long-term debt aggregating $357.3 million in the period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. Furthermore the $200.0 million PNM 2017 Term Loan Agreement matures in January 2019 and TNMP has $172.3 million of first mortgage bonds that are due in April 2019. In addition to internal cash generation, the Company anticipates that it will be necessary to obtain additional long-term financing in the form of debt refinancing, new debt issuances, and/or new equity in order to fund its capital requirements during the 2018-2022 period. The Company currently believes that its internal cash generation, existing credit arrangements, and access to public and private capital markets will provide sufficient resources to meet the Company’s capital requirements for the next twelve months. The Company is in compliance with its debt covenants.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto. Trends and contingencies of a material nature are discussed to the extent known. Also, refer to Disclosure Regarding Forward Looking Statements in Part I, Item 1 and to Risk Factors in Part I, Item 1A.

A summary of net earnings attributable to PNMR is as follows:
 Year Ended December 31, Change
 2017 2016 2015 2017/2016 2016/2015
 (In millions, except per share amounts)
      
Net earnings attributable to PNMR$79.9
 $116.8
 $15.6
 $(37.0) $101.2
Average diluted common and common equivalent shares80.1
 80.1
 80.1
 
 
Net earnings attributable to PNMR per diluted share$1.00
 $1.46
 $0.20
 $(0.46) $1.26

The components of the changes in net earnings attributable to PNMR by segment are:
 Change
 2017/2016 2016/2015
 (In millions)
PNM$(5.0) $92.7
TNMP(6.1) (0.3)
Corporate and Other(25.9) 8.9
  Net change$(37.0) $101.2

Information regarding the factors impacting PNMR’s operating results by segment are set forth below.

Segment Information

The following discussion is based on the segment methodology that PNMR’s management uses for making operating decisions and assessing performance of its various business activities. See Note 2 for more information on PNMR’s operating segments.
PNM

PNM defines utility margin as electric operating revenues less cost of energy, which consists primarily of fuel and purchase power costs. PNM believes that utility margin provides a more meaningful basis for evaluating operations than electric operating revenues since substantially all fuel and purchase power costs are offset in revenues as those costs are passed through to customers

A - 43


under PNM’s FPPAC. Utility margin is not a financial measure required to be presented under GAAP and is considered a non-GAAP measure.


A - 44


The following table summarizes the operating results for PNM:
 Year Ended December 31, Change
 2017 2016 2015 2017/2016 2016/2015
 (In millions)
Electric operating revenues$1,104.2
 $1,035.9
 $1,131.2
 $68.3
 $(95.3)
Cost of energy321.7
 299.7
 391.1
 22.0
 (91.4)
Utility margin782.6
 736.2
 740.1
 46.4
 (3.9)
Operating expenses423.0
 414.7
 591.0
 8.3
 (176.3)
Depreciation and amortization147.0
 133.4
 115.7
 13.6
��17.7
Operating income212.5
 188.1
 33.4
 24.4
 154.7
Other income (deductions)39.1
 32.2
 33.5
 6.9
 (1.3)
Interest charges(82.7) (87.5) (80.0) 4.8
 (7.5)
Segment earnings (loss) before income taxes169.0
 132.9
 (13.1) 36.1
 146.0
Income (taxes) benefit(81.6) (40.9) 12.8
 (40.7) (53.7)
Valencia non-controlling interest(15.0) (14.5) (14.9) (0.5) 0.4
Preferred stock dividend requirements(0.5) (0.5) (0.5) 
 
Segment earnings (loss)$71.9
 $76.9
 $(15.8) $(5.0) $92.7

The following table shows GWh sales, including the impacts of weather, by customer class and average number of customers:
 Year Ended December 31, Change
 2017 2016 2015 2017/2016 2016/2015
 (Gigawatt hours, except customers)
Residential3,136.1
 3,189.5
 3,185.4
 (53.4) 4.1
Commercial3,774.4
 3,831.3
 3,800.5
 (56.9) 30.8
Industrial850.9
 875.1
 957.3
 (24.2) (82.2)
Public authority250.5
 249.9
 246.5
 0.6
 3.4
Economy service (1)
722.5
 805.7
 796.4
 (83.2) 9.3
Firm-requirements wholesale (2)
87.6
 429.3
 444.5
 (341.7) (15.2)
Other sales for resale (3)
3,632.1
 2,899.3
 2,110.9
 732.8
 788.4
 12,454.1
 12,280.2
 11,541.5
 174.0
 738.6
Average retail customer (thousands)522.0
 518.6
 514.9
 3.4
 3.7

(1)
PNM purchases energy for a major customer on the customer’s behalf and delivers the energy to the customer’s location through PNM’s transmission system. PNM charges the customer for the cost of the energy as a direct pass through to the customer with no impact to PNM’s utility margin so there is only a minor impact in utility margin resulting from providing ancillary services.
(2)
Decrease in 2017 reflects reduced sales to NEC (Note 17) and loss of other firm-requirements wholesale customers.
(3)
Increases in 2017 and 2016 include the hazard sharing agreement with Tri-State (Note 17). Increase is also due to more power available for off-system sales, primarily related to SJGS and Four Corners, as well as power that was previously sold to NEC and other firm-requirements wholesale customers. Substantially all of the margin from off-system sales is returned to customers through the FPPAC.



A - 45


Operating Results2017 Compared to 2016

The following table summarizes the significant changes to utility margin:

   Year Ended
December 31, 2017
   Change
Utility margin: (In millions)
    
 
Rate relief – Additional revenue due to rate increase approved by the NMPRC on September 28, 2016 and certain fuel costs being passed through the FPPAC
 $51.9
 
Customer usage/load – PNM’s weather normalized retail KWh sales decreased 0.9%, due to decreased sales to residential, commercial, and industrial customers
 (5.9)
 
Weather – Milder weather; heating degree days were 8.9% lower, partially offset by higher cooling degree days of 2.0%
 (3.8)
 
Leap Year – Decrease in revenue due to additional day in 2016
 (1.6)
 
Transmission  Higher revenues under formula transmission rates and the addition of new customers
 12.1
 
Wholesale contracts  Primarily due to NEC (Note 17)
 (7.8)
 
Unregulated margin  Higher hedged prices for PVNGS Unit 3 power sales
 3.9
 
Rate riders  Includes renewable energy and energy efficiency riders, which are partially offset in operating expenses, depreciation and amortization, and interest charges
 (1.9)
 
Net unrealized economic hedges  Losses related to hedges of NEC power sales, partially offset by gains related to hedges of PVNGS
 (1.3)
 Other 0.8
 Net Change $46.4


A - 46


The following tables summarize the primary drivers for operating expenses, depreciation and amortization, other income (deductions), interest charges, and income taxes:
   Year Ended
December 31, 2017
   Change
Operating expenses: (In millions)
   
 2017 regulatory disallowance due to the NMPRC’s January 17, 2018 order in PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case (Note 17) $27.9
 Regulatory disallowances due to the NMPRC’s September 28, 2016 order in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case (Note 17) (8.1)
 Regulatory disallowances due to change in estimated write-offs associated with the SJGS BART determination and ownership restructuring (Note 16) (7.8)
 Lower plant maintenance costs at SJGS, Four Corners, and PVNGS, partially offset by increased costs at gas-fired plants (3.8)
 Implementation of process improvement initiatives in 2016 associated with reducing future costs (3.7)
 Lower employee related expenses and outside consulting costs (3.4)
 Lower rent expense associated with PVNGS leases (Note 7) (0.9)
 Higher capitalized administrative and general expenses due to higher construction spending (1.7)
 Higher allocated corporate depreciation, primarily related to computer software 5.4
 Training costs associated with new software implementation 1.1
 Contribution to the PNM Resources Foundation 1.0
 Higher property taxes due to increased utility plant in service 0.9
 Higher environmental expenses 0.5
 Other 0.9
 Net Change $8.3
Depreciation and amortization:  
   
 Higher depreciation rates approved by the NMPRC in PNM’s 2015 NM Rate Case, including the impacts of impairments (Note 17) $6.1
 Increased utility plant in service 6.8
 Other 0.7
 Net Change $13.6


A - 47


   Year Ended
December 31, 2017
   Change
Other income (deductions): (In millions)
   
 Higher gains on available-for-sale securities in the NDT and coal mine reclamation trusts $7.6
 Higher equity AFUDC, primarily due to increased levels of construction expenditures 4.5
 Interest income from third party transmission service provider due to FERC ruling 1.0
 Lower income from “refined coal” (a third-party pre-treatment process); income is now passed through to customers as ordered in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case (3.8)
 2016 interest income from IRS, net of related expenses (Note 11) (2.9)
 Other 0.5
 Net Change $6.9
Interest charges:  
   
 Lower interest on $146.0 million of PCRBs refinanced in September 2016 $2.6
 Lower interest on $57.0 million of PCRBs refinanced in June 2017 0.6
 Lower short term debt borrowings 0.8
 Higher debt AFUDC as a result of higher construction spending 1.0
 Other (0.2)
 Net Change $4.8
Income taxes:  
   
 Increase due to higher segment earnings before income taxes $(13.8)
 Impacts of increase in equity AFUDC 1.7
 Regulatory recovery of prior year impairments of state net operating loss carryforwards due to NMPRC orders in PNM rate cases (Note 17) (net of amortization) 0.3
 Impacts of phased-in reduction in New Mexico corporate income tax rates 2.0
 Decrease due to excess tax benefits related to stock compensation awards (Note 13) 1.7
 Impairments of state NOL carryforwards (0.9)
 Impact of change in federal corporate income tax rate (29.6)
 Other impairments and valuation allowances (2.1)
 Net Change $(40.7)



A - 48


Operating Results– 2016 Compared to 2015

The following table summarizes the significant changes to utility margin:
   Year Ended
December 31, 2016
   Change
Utility margin: (In millions)
    
 
Customer usage/load  PNM’s weather normalized retail KWh sales decreased 0.7%; decreased industrial sales were offset by increases in residential and commercial customer sales, who pay a higher price per KWh
 $1.1
 
Rate relief – Additional revenue due to the rate increase and certain fuel costs being passed through the FPPAC
 19.6
 
Weather – Milder weather; heating degree days were lower by 3.9% and cooling degree days were lower by 2.2% in 2016
 (0.9)
 
Transmission  Higher revenues under formula transmission rates and lower cost of third party transmission
 3.2
 
Wholesale contracts  Primarily lower revenues from NEC (Note 17)
 (5.8)
 
Unregulated margin  Lower market prices for PVNGS Unit 3 sales
 (12.1)
 
Rate riders  Includes renewable energy and energy efficiency riders, which are partially offset in operating expenses, depreciation and amortization, and interest charges
 (6.3)
 
Net unrealized economic hedges  Primarily related to hedges of PVNGS Unit 3 power sales
 3.6
 
Settlements  2015 refunds under FERC tariff for gas transportation agreement and SPS settlement (Note 16)
 (5.4)
 Other (0.9)
 Net Change $(3.9)


A - 49


The following tables summarize the primary drivers for operating expenses, depreciation and amortization, other income (deductions), interest charges, and income taxes:
   Year Ended
December 31, 2016
   Change
Operating expenses: (In millions)
   
 Regulatory disallowance due to the NMPRC’s September 28, 2016 order in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case (Note 17) $11.3
 Regulatory disallowances associated with the SJGS BART determination and ownership restructuring (Note 16) (162.0)
 2015 regulatory disallowance of rate case expenses resulting from the NMPRC dismissal of the 2014 general rate case (1.5)
 Lower rent expense associated with PVNGS leases (Note 7) (21.7)
 Lower rent expense due to the termination of the EIP lease on April 1, 2015 (0.7)
 Lower plant maintenance costs at SJGS and gas-fired plants, partially offset by increased costs at Four Corners plant (8.5)
 Higher labor, pension, benefits, and OPEB costs 6.6
 Implementation of process improvement initiatives associated with reducing future costs 3.7
 Higher property taxes due to increases in utility plant in service 2.3
 Higher costs associated with rate riders, which are offset in utility margin 1.8
 Lower environmental expenses (1.0)
 2015 costs associated with exploring alternative fuel supply for SJGS (2.2)
 Other (4.4)
 Net Change $(176.3)
Depreciation and amortization:  
   
 Purchase of assets underlying PVNGS Unit 2 leases (Note 7) $4.8
 Higher depreciation rates approved in the NM 2015 Rate Case 3.3
 Other additions to utility plant in service, including PNM-owned solar PV facilities and environmental upgrades at SJGS 9.6
 Net Change $17.7
Other income (deductions):  
   
 Higher gains on available-for-sale securities in the NDT and coal mine reclamation trusts $3.5
 Interest income from IRS, net of expenses (Note 11) 2.9
 Sale of substations and associated transmission facilities in 2015 (1.1)
 Higher interest income and lower trust expenses related to available-for-sale securities in the NDT and coal mine reclamation trusts 1.5
 Lower equity AFUDC as a result of lower construction spending (6.3)
 Lower income from refined coal (a third-party pre-treatment process at SJGS), due to the decision in the NM 2015 Rate Case directing that such income be passed through to customers (1.0)
 Other (0.8)
 Net Change $(1.3)

A - 50


   Year Ended
December 31, 2016
   Change
Interest charges: (In millions)
   
 Issuance of $250.0 million of long-term debt on August 11, 2015 $(5.5)
 Lower debt AFUDC as a result of lower construction spending (2.2)
 Other 0.2
 Net Change $(7.5)
Income taxes:  
   
 Increase due to higher segment earnings before income taxes $(57.1)
 Impacts of decrease in equity AFUDC (2.4)
 Impacts of phased-in reduction in New Mexico corporate income tax rates (1.3)
 Reversal of deferred income tax items related to the BART determination for SJGS in 2015 1.8
 Allowed regulatory recovery of 2014 impairment of state net operating loss carryforward (net of amortization) 1.9
 Impairments of state net operating loss carryforwards in 2015 3.6
 Other (0.2)
 Net Change $(53.7)

TNMP

TNMP defines utility margin as electric operating revenues less cost of energy, which consists of costs charged by third-party transmission providers. TNMP believes that utility margin provides a more meaningful basis for evaluating operations than electric operating revenues since all third-party transmission costs are passed on to customers through a transmission cost recovery factor. Utility margin is not a financial measure required to be presented under GAAP and is considered a non-GAAP measure.

The following table summarizes the operating results for TNMP:
 Year Ended December 31, Change
 2017 2016 2015 2017/2016 2016/2015
 (In millions)
Electric operating revenues$340.8
 $327.0
 $307.9
 $13.8
 $19.1
Cost of energy85.8
 80.9
 73.5
 4.9
 7.4
Utility margin255.0
 246.2
 234.4
 8.8
 11.8
Operating expenses98.2
 93.4
 88.1
 4.8
 5.3
Depreciation and amortization63.1
 61.1
 56.3
 2.0
 4.8
Operating income93.6
 91.6
 90.0
 2.0
 1.6
Other income (deductions)3.6
 3.2
 3.7
 0.4
 (0.5)
Interest charges(30.1) (29.3) (27.7) (0.8) (1.6)
Segment earnings before income taxes67.1
 65.5
 66.1
 1.6
 (0.6)
Income (taxes)(31.5) (23.8) (24.1) (7.7) 0.3
Segment earnings$35.6
 $41.7
 $42.0
 $(6.1) $(0.3)

A - 51


The following table shows total GWh sales, including the impacts of weather, by retail tariff consumer class and average number of consumers:
 Year Ended December 31, Percentage Change
 2017 2016 2015 2017/2016 2016/2015
Volumetric load (1) (GWh)
 
Residential2,936.6
 2,933.9
 2,912.0
 0.1 % 0.8 %
Commercial and other34.0
 42.4
 49.3
 (19.8)% (14.0)%
Total volumetric load2,970.6
 2,976.3
 2,961.3
 (0.2)% 0.5 %
Demand-based load (2) (MW)
16,599.5
 15,564.8
 14,781.3
 6.6 % 5.3 %
Average retail consumers (thousands) (3)
248.3
 245.3
 241.6
 1.2 % 1.5 %

(1)
Volumetric load consumers are billed on KWh usage.
(2)
Demand-based load includes consumers billed on a monthly KW peak and also includes retail transmission customers that are primarily billed under rate riders.
(3)
TNMP provides transmission and distribution services to REPs that provide electric service to customers in TNMP’s service territories. The number of consumers above represents the customers of these REPs. Under TECA, consumers in Texas have the ability to choose any REP to provide energy.

Operating results2017 compared to 2016

The following table summarizes the significant changes to utility margin:
   Year Ended December 31, 2017
   Change
Utility margin: (In millions)
    
 
Rate relief  Transmission cost of service rate increases in March and September of 2017 and 2016
 $6.7
 
Retail customer usage/load  Weather normalized retail KWh sales increased 1.2%, primarily related to the residential class; the average number of retail consumers increased 1.2%
 0.6
 
Demand based customer usage/load  Higher demand-based revenues for large commercial and industrial retail consumers; billed demand, excluding retail transmission customers, increased 4.0%
 2.5
 
Wholesale transmission load – Increased coincidental peak load for third-party transmission customers

 1.3
 
Rate riders – Impacts of rate riders, including the AMS surcharge, CTC surcharge, energy efficiency rider, and transmission cost recovery factor, which are partially offset in operating expenses, depreciation and amortization, and interest charges
 (1.4)
 
Weather – Milder weather in 2017; heating degree days were 13.1% lower
 (0.8)
 Other (0.1)
 Net Change $8.8


A - 52


The following tables summarize the primary drivers for operating expenses, depreciation and amortization, other income (deductions), interest charges, and income taxes:
   Year Ended December 31, 2017
   Change
Operating expenses: (In millions)
   
 Higher allocated corporate depreciation, primarily related to computer software $1.9
 Higher outside consulting costs, including vegetation management 2.8
 Higher property taxes due to increased utility plant in service 1.4
 Higher employee related expenses 0.4
 Training costs associated with new software implementation 0.4
 Higher capitalized administrative and general expenses due to higher construction spending in 2017 (1.3)
 2016 lease abandonment costs associated with building consolidation efforts (1.0)
 Other 0.2
 Net Change $4.8
Depreciation and amortization:  
   
 Increased utility plant in service $3.0
 Reduced CTC amortization and AMS depreciation (1.0)
 Net Change $2.0
Other income (deductions):  
   
 Higher CIAC $0.2
 2016 interest income from IRS, net of related expenses (Note 11) (0.3)
 Other 0.5
 Net Change $0.4
Interest charges:  
   
 Increase due to the issuance of $60.0 million of long-term debt in February 2016 $(0.2)
 Increase due to the issuance of $60.0 million of long-term debt in August 2017 (0.7)
 Higher debt AFUDC 0.3
 Other (0.2)
 Net Change $(0.8)
Income taxes:  
   
 Increase due to higher segment earnings before income taxes $(0.5)
 Decrease due to excess tax benefits related to stock compensation awards (Note 13) 0.6
 Impact of change in federal corporate income tax rate (7.9)
 Other 0.1
 Net Change $(7.7)


A - 53


Operating Results – 2016 compared to 2015

The following table summarizes the significant changes to utility margin:
   Year Ended December 31, 2016
   Change
Utility margin: (In millions)
    
 
Rate relief  Transmission cost of service rate increases in March and September of 2016 and 2015 (See Note 17)
 $4.5
 
Customer usage/load  3.0% increase in weather normalized retail KWh sales, primarily related to the residential and commercial classes; higher demand-based revenues for large commercial and industrial retail customers; and increased wholesale transmission load in 2016; the average number of retail customers increased 1.5%
 5.7
 
Rate riders – Impacts of rate riders, including the AMS surcharge, CTC surcharge, energy efficiency rider, and transmission cost recovery factor, which are partially offset in operating expenses, depreciation and amortization, and interest charges
 3.3
 
Weather – Milder weather in 2016; heating degree days were 19.6% lower and cooling degree days were 1.3% higher compared to 2015
 (1.8)
 
Energy efficiency program – Higher incentive bonus in 2016
 0.1
 Net Change $11.8

The following tables summarize the primary drivers for operating expenses, depreciation and amortization, other income (deductions), interest charges, and income taxes:
   Year Ended December 31, 2016
   Change
Operating expenses: (In millions)
   
 Higher property taxes due to increases in utility plant in service and higher assessed values $1.2
 Lease abandonment costs associated with building consolidation efforts 1.0
 Higher pension and benefit expense 0.9
 Higher rate rider related costs, which are offset in utility margin 0.8
 Higher labor 0.8
 Other 0.6
 Net Change $5.3
Depreciation and amortization:  
   
 Increase due to AMS deployment and CTC amortization $2.0
 Increase due to increases in utility plant in service 2.8
 Net Change $4.8
Other income (deductions):  
   
 Decrease primarily due to lower CIAC, partially offset by higher equity AFUDC and interest income from IRS (Note 17) $(0.5)

A - 54


   Year Ended December 31, 2016
   Change
Interest charges: (In millions)
   
 Increase primarily due to the issuance of $60.0 million of long-term debt on February 10, 2016, partially offset by debt AFUDC $(1.6)
Income taxes:  
   
 Decrease primarily due to lower segment earnings before income taxes $0.3

Corporate and Other
The table below summarizes the operating results for Corporate and Other:
Year Ended December 31, ChangeYear Ended December 31, Change
2015 2014 2013 2015/2014 2014/20132017 2016 2015 2017/2016 2016/2015
  (In millions)    (In millions)  
Electric operating revenues$
 $
 $
 $
 $
Total revenues$
 $
 $
 $
 $
Cost of energy
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
Margin
 
 
 
 
Utility margin
 
 
 
 
Operating expenses(14.9) (14.5) (18.3) (0.4) 3.8
(22.1) (12.8) (14.9) (9.3) 2.1
Depreciation and amortization13.9
 13.1
 12.8
 0.8
 0.3
21.8
 14.5
 13.9
 7.3
 0.6
Operating income0.9
 1.4
 5.5
 (0.5) (4.1)
Operating income (loss)0.4
 (1.7) 0.9
 2.1
 (2.6)
Other income (deductions)(0.6) (2.4) (13.7) 1.8
 11.3
4.2
 10.4
 (0.6) (6.2) 11.0
Interest charges(7.2) (12.8) (14.9) 5.6
 2.1
(14.8) (11.8) (7.2) (3.0) (4.6)
Segment earnings (loss) before income taxes(6.9) (13.8) (23.1) 6.9
 9.3
(10.3) (3.2) (6.9) (7.1) 3.7
Income (taxes) benefit(3.7) 5.4
 6.9
 (9.1) (1.5)(17.3) 1.5
 (3.7) (18.8) 5.2
Segment earnings (loss)$(10.6) $(8.4) $(16.2) $(2.2) $7.8
$(27.6) $(1.7) $(10.6) $(25.9) $8.9

Corporate and Other operating expenses shown above are net of amounts allocated to PNM and TNMP under shared services agreements. The amounts allocated include certain expenses shown as depreciation and amortization and other income (deductions) in the table above. DepreciationThe change in depreciation expense increases are primarily duerelates to additions ofincreased corporate depreciation rates and computer software. Substantially all depreciation and amortization expense is offset in operating expenses as a result of allocation of these costs to other business segments.

Operating results20152017 compared to 20142016

Other income (deductions) – Other income (deductions) increases primarily due toThe following tables summarize the $3.1 million impact of PNMR Development’s share of the fee resulting from the ownership restructuring of SJGS, which was recorded at December 31, 2015 (Note 16. This was partially offset by the 2015 write off of $1.1 millionprimary drivers for investments related to a former PNMR subsidiary, which ceased operations in 2008.

Interest charges – Interest charges decreased in 2015 primarily due to the maturity of PNMR’s $118.8 million of 9.25% Senior Unsecured Notes Series A on May 15, 2015 partially offset by PNMR’s new $150.0 million Term Loan Agreement entered into on March 9, 2015. A decrease in overall short-term borrowings and lower interest rates also reduced interest expense.

Income taxes – The increase in income taxes (benefit) reflects changes in income before income taxes. The extension of bonus depreciation for income tax purposes reduces anticipated future taxable income, which resulted in impairments of the deferred tax assets recorded for New Mexico net operating loss, New Mexico wind energy production tax credit, and charitable contribution carryforwards aggregating $6.8 million and $1.9 million in 2015 and 2014 Note 11. The settlement of an IRS examination in 2014 which resulted in an income tax benefit of $1.3 million also contributed to the increase.

Operating results2014 compared to 2013

Operating expenses- Operating expenses decreased in 2014 primarily due to the allocation of $4.0 million of the Company’s 2013 contributions to the PNM Resources Foundation and financial support to the PNM Good Neighbor Fund, recorded in other income (deductions), which did not recur in 2014.interest charges, and income taxes:
   Year ended December 31, 2017
   Change
Other income (deductions): (In millions)
   
 Decrease in interest income on the Westmoreland Loan (Note 16) $(3.7)
 2016 interest income from IRS, net of related expenses (Note 11) (0.8)
 Increase in donations, including the PNM Resources Foundation (1.5)
 Other (0.2)
 Net Change $(6.2)

Other income (deductions) – Changes in other income (deductions) are primarily due to:

Increase due to the $4.0 million contribution in 2013 to the PNM Resources Foundation and financial support to the PNM Good Neighbor Fund, which were allocated to PNM and TNMP reducing operating expenses as discussed above
Increase due to 2013 losses of $3.3 million on the repurchase of $23.8 million of PNMR’s 9.25% senior unsecured notes (Note 6)
Increase due to $3.6 million lower amortization related to corporate investments that became fully amortized in 2013

Interest charges – Interest charges decreased in 2014 primarily due to the repurchase of $23.8 million of 9.25% senior unsecured notes in 2013, as well as a decrease in overall short-term borrowings and lower interest rates.

Income taxes – Income taxes decreased in 2014 compared to 2013 primarily due to the settlement of an IRS examination in 2014 which resulted in an income tax benefit of $1.3 million. An additional income tax expense of $1.1 million reflected in the PNM segment offsets this amount.

A- 46A - 55



   Year ended December 31, 2017
   Change
Interest charges: (In millions)
   
 Issuance of the $100.0 million 2016 Two-Year Term Loan in December 2016 $(2.0)
 Issuance of the $100.0 million 2016 One-Year Term Loan in December 2016 (1.9)
 Higher short term borrowings and interest rates (2.4)
 Repayment of a $150.0 million PNMR term loan in December 2016 2.0
 Decrease in interest expense on the BTMU Loan Agreement (Note 6) 1.2
 Other 0.1
 Net Change $(3.0)
Income taxes:  
   
 Increase in benefit due to change in segment (earnings) loss before income taxes $2.7
 Impact of change in federal corporate income tax rate (20.0)
 Other impairments and valuation allowances (1.1)
 Other (0.4)
 Net Change $(18.8)

Operating Results2016 compared to 2015
The following tables summarize the primary drivers for other income (deductions), interest charges, and income taxes:
   Year ended December 31, 2016
   Change
Other income (deductions): (In millions)
   
 Interest income on the $125.0 million Westmoreland Loan (Note 16) beginning February 1, 2016 $11.3
 Losses recorded in 2015 on items included in other investments related to a former PNMR subsidiary that ceased operations in 2008 1.1
 Interest income from IRS, net of related expenses (Note 11) 0.8
 PNMR Development’s share of the fee resulting from the ownership restructuring of SJGS recorded at December 31, 2015 (Note 16) (3.1)
 Other 0.9
 Net Change $11.0
Interest charges:
Issuance of the $125.0 million BTMU Term Loan Agreement on February 1, 2016 (Note 6)$(4.6)
Issuance of the $150.0 million PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement on March 9, 2015(1.5)
Maturity of $118.8 million of long-term debt on May 15, 20154.3
Higher short term borrowings(2.6)
Other��(0.2)
Net Change$(4.6)

A - 56



   Year ended December 31, 2016
   Change
Income taxes: (In millions)
   
 Reduction in benefit due to change in segment earnings (loss) before income taxes $(1.4)
 Impairment of wind energy production tax credits recorded in 2015 3.1
 Impairment of state net operating loss recorded in 2015 1.7
 Impairment of charitable contributions carry forward recorded in 2015 2.0
 Other (0.2)
 Net Change $5.2


LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Statements of Cash Flows
The information concerning PNMR’s cash flows is summarized as follows:
Year Ended December 31, ChangeYear Ended December 31, Change
2015 2014 2013 2015/2014 2014/20132017 2016 2015 2017/2016 2016/2015
(In millions)(In millions)
Net cash flows from:  
Operating activities$386.9
 $414.9
 $386.6
 $(28.0) $28.3
$524.5
 $415.5
 $386.9
 $109.0
 $28.6
Investing activities(544.5) (485.3) (331.4) (59.2) $(153.9)(466.2) (699.4) (544.5) 233.2
 (154.9)
Financing activities175.4
 96.2
 (61.6) 79.2
 157.8
(58.8) 242.4
 175.4
 (301.2) 67.0
Net change in cash and cash equivalents$17.8
 $25.7
 $(6.5) $(8.0) $32.2
$(0.5) $(41.5) $17.8
 $41.0
 $(59.3)

Cash Flows from Operating Activities
Changes in PNMR’s cash flowsflow from operating activities result from net earnings, adjusted for items impacting earnings that do not provide or use cash. See Results of Operations above. Certain changes in assets and liabilities resulting from normal operations, including the effects of the seasonal nature of the Company’s operations, also impact operating cash flows. Cash flows from operating activities also increased $55.4 million in 2015 compared to 2014 related to the collection of amounts under PNM’s FPPAC, primarily resulting from the cap on amounts passed through to ratepayers prior to June 30, 2014. In addition, PNMR received income tax refunds of $1.9 million in 2015 and $2.6 million in 2014 compared to refunds received of $95.3 million in 2013. PNMR made contributions to the PNM and TNMP pension and other postretirement benefit plans of $35.5 million in 2015 compared to $5.4 million in 2014 and $66.5 million in 2013. These increases were offset by refunds of $15.2 million made to customers related to the settlement of PNM’s transmission rate case in 2013.

Cash Flows from Investing Activities
The changes in PNMR’s cash flows from investing activities relate primarily to increaseschanges in plant additions of $97.9 million in 2015 compared to 2014 and $112.6 million in 2014 compared to 2013. At PNM, total utility plant additions were $88.0 million higher in 2015 compared to 2014, including increased generation additions of $47.0 million, renewable additions of $34.4 million, transmission and distribution additions of $3.8 million, and nuclear fuel purchases of $2.8 million. PNM total utility plant additions were $76.9 million higher in 2014 compared to 2013, including increases in generation additions of $40.0 million, transmission and distribution additions of $33.5 million and nuclear fuel purchases of $4.8 million offset by a decrease in renewable additions of $1.4 million. TNMP utility plant additions decreased $2.6 million in 2015 compared to 2014, including decreases in transmission additions of $17.6 million and AMS additions of $4.9 million offset by an increase in distribution additions of $16.1 million. TNMP utility plant additions increased by $38.1 million in 2014 compared to 2013, including increases in distribution additions of $18.7 million, transmission additions of $17.8 million and AMS additions of $1.6 million. Corporate and other plant additions were $12.5 million higher in 2015 compared to 2014, including PNMR Development utility plant additions of $8.2 million and computer hardware and software additions of $4.3 million. Corporate and other plant additions decreased by $2.3 million in 2014 compared to 2013additions. Cash flows from investing activities also include activity related to computer hardwarethe Westmoreland Loan and software additions. Construction expenditures were funded primarily throughNMRD. Major components of PNMR’s cash flowsinflows and (outflows) from operatinginvesting activities and short-term borrowings. Investing activities includes $2.6 millionare shown below:

A - 57



 Year Ended December 31, Change
 2017 2016 2015 2017/2016 2016/2015
Cash (Outflows) for Utility Plant Additions(In millions)
PNM:         
Generation$(74.4) $(84.3) $(193.6) $9.9
 $109.3
Transmission and distribution(173.4) (127.2) (182.0) (46.2) 54.8
Purchase of previously leased capacity in PVNGS Unit 2
 (163.3) 
 163.3
 (163.3)
Four Corners SCRs(34.9) (40.9) 
 6.0
 (40.9)
Nuclear fuel(26.4) (29.8) (29.2) 3.4
 (0.6)
 (309.1) (445.5) (404.8) 136.4
 (40.7)
          
TNMP:         
Transmission(60.7) (71.5) (49.7) 10.8
 (21.8)
Distribution(83.5) (39.4) (58.7) (44.1) 19.3
AMS(1.3) (11.6) (16.2) 10.3
 4.6
 (145.5) (122.5) (124.6) (23.0) 2.1
          
Corporate and Other:         
Computer hardware and software(19.9) (31.0) (21.0) 11.1
 (10.0)
PNMR Development utility plant additions(25.9) (1.1) (8.2) (24.8) 7.1
 (45.8) (32.1) (29.2) (13.7) (2.9)
 $(500.4) $(600.1) $(558.6) $99.7
 $(41.5)
          
Cash Inflows (Outflows) on the Westmoreland Loan         
Loan origination$
 $(122.3) $
 $122.3
 $(122.3)
Principal payments38.4
 30.0
 
 8.4
 30.0
 $38.4
 $(92.3) $
 $130.7
 $(92.3)
          
Cash Inflows (Outflows) Related to NMRD         
Investments in NMRD$(4.1) $
 $
 $(4.1) $
Disbursements from NMRD12.4
 $
 
 12.4
 
 $8.3
 $
 $
 $8.3
 $

Cash Flow from the sale of Gallup assets in 2015 and $36.2 million for the acquisition of Rio Bravo in 2014 as discussed in Note 9.

Financing Activities
The changes in PNMR’s cash flows from financing activities include an increase in net short-term borrowings of $188.6include:
In 2015, PNMR borrowed $150.0 million in 2015 compared to 2014. Long-term borrowings in 2015 includeunder the $150.0 million PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement and $25.0 million of additional long-term borrowings under the PNM Multi-draw Term Loan. PNMR used portions of the proceeds to repayrepaid $118.8 million of 9.25% Senior Unsecured Notes Series A, that matured on May 15, 2015. with the proceeds; PNMR also increased its borrowings under the PNMR Term Loan Agreement from $100.0 million to $150.0 million
In addition,2015, PNM issued $250.0 million aggregate principal amountsamount of its 3.850% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2025. PNM used the proceeds to repay theand repaid a $175.0 million PNM 2014 Term Loan Agreement and other outstanding short-term borrowings, including PNM’s intercompanyterm loan from PNMR. In 2015,with the proceeds; PNM also successfully remarketed $39.3drew the remaining capacity of $25.0 million of PCRBs. In 2014, PNMR’s cash flows from financing activity also include a reduction in net short-term borrowings of $34.1 million compared to 2013. Long-term borrowings in 2014 include the $175.0 million PNM 2014 Term Loan agreement and $100.0 million ofunder the $125.0 million PNM Multi-draw Term Loan which were used to repay amounts
In 2016, PNMR borrowed $100.0 million under the existingPNMR One-Year Term Loan (included in short-term borrowings) and $100.0 million under the PNMR Two-Year Loan and repaid the PNMR Term Loan Agreement with the proceeds
In 2016, PNM 2013borrowed $175.0 million under the PNM 2016 Term Loan Agreement and other short-term borrowings. In addition, 2014 includesrepaid the issuancePNM Multi-draw Term Loan with the proceeds
NM Capital received net proceeds of $80.0$122.5 million under the $125.0 million BTMU Term Loan Agreement in 2016 and utilized the proceeds to provide funds for the Westmoreland Loan; in accordance with the BTMU Term Loan Agreement, NM Capital made principal payments of $42.1 million in long-term debt at TNMP, which was used to repay amounts2017 and $32.8 million in 2016
In 2017, PNM borrowed $200.0 million under the existing TNMP 2011PNM 2017 Term Loan Agreement and other short-term borrowings. Long-term borrowings in 2013 includerepaid the $75.0 PNM 20132016 Term Loan Agreement. In addition, $13.0Agreement with the proceeds
PNM successfully remarketed PCRBs of $57.0 million was paid in connection with TNMP’s debt exchange2017, $146.0 million in 2016, and $26.9$39.3 million was paid by PNMR to repurchase $23.8in 2015
TNMP issued $60.0 million of its outstanding 9.25% Senior Unsecured Notes, Series 3.22% first mortgage bonds in 2017 and $60.0 million of 3.53% first mortgage bonds in 2016

A due 2015, in 2013.
Financing Activities

A- 47- 58



Short-term borrowings increased $18.3 million in 2017 compared to an increase of $86.5 million in 2016 and an increase of $95.0 million in 2015, resulting in a net decrease in cash flows from financing activities of $68.2 million in 2017 and $8.5 million in 2016
In 2017, PNM had net repayments of amounts received under transmission interconnection arrangements of $9.4 million compared to net amounts received in 2016 of $4.3 million and net amounts repaid of $2.3 million in 2015

Financing Activities
See Note 6 for additional information concerning the Company’s financing activities. PNM must obtain NMPRC approval for any financing transaction having a maturity of more than 18 months. In addition, PNM files its annual short-term financing plan with the NMPRC. The Company’s ability to access the credit and capital markets at a reasonable cost is largely dependent upon its:
Ability to earn a fair return on equity
Results of operations
Ability to obtain required regulatory approvals
Conditions in the financial markets
Credit ratings
Each of the Company’s revolving credit facilities and term loans contains a single financial covenant, which requires the maintenance of debt-to-capital ratios of less than or equal to 65%, and generally include customary covenants, events of default, cross default provisions, and change of control provisions. The Company is in compliance with its debt covenants.

On March 9, 2015,As discussed in Note 16, NM Capital, a wholly-owned subsidiary of PNMR, entered into the $150.0$125.0 million PNMR 2015BTMU Term Loan Agreement.Agreement with The PNMR 2015Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. (“BTMU”), as lender and administrative agent. The BTMU Term Loan Agreement has a maturity of February 1, 2021 and bears interest at a variable rate based on LIBOR plus a customary spread, which was 1.22%aggregated 4.13% at December 31, 2015, and must be repaid on or before March 9, 2018.2017. The PNMR 2015principal balance outstanding under the BTMU Term Loan Agreement includes customary covenantswas $50.1 million at December 31, 2017 and conditions.$45.1 million at February 20, 2018. PNMR, as parent company of NM Capital, has guaranteed NM Capital’s obligations to BTMU. NM Capital utilized a portionthe proceeds of the proceeds from the PNMR 2015BTMU Term Loan Agreement and borrowings underto provide funding for the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility$125.0 million Westmoreland Loan (Note 16) to retire the $118.8 milliona ring-fenced, bankruptcy-remote, special-purpose entity, which is a subsidiary of 9.25% Senior Unsecured Notes, Series A when they matured on May 15, 2015. In September 2015,Westmoreland, to finance Westmoreland’s purchase of SJCC.

On October 21, 2016, PNMR entered into letter of credit arrangements with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “JPM LOC Facility”) under which letters of credit aggregating $30.3 million were issued to facilitate the posting of reclamation bonds, which SJCC is required to post in connection with permits relating to the operation of the San Juan mine (Note 16).

At January 1, 2017, PNM had $37.0 million of outstanding PCRBs, which have a hedging agreement whereby it effectively establishedfinal maturity of June 1, 2040, and $20.0 million of outstanding PCRBs, which have a fixed interest ratefinal maturity of 1.927%June 1, 2042. These PCRBs were subject to mandatory tender for borrowings under the PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreementremarketing on June 1, 2017 and were successfully remarketed on that date. Both series are now subject to mandatory tender for the period from January 11, 2016 through March 9, 2018.remarketing on June 1, 2022.

On August 11, 2015, PNM issued $250.0 million aggregate principal amount of its 3.850% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2025. The notes will mature on August 1, 2025. Portions of the proceeds from the offering were used to repay the existing $175.0 million PNM 2014 Term Loan Agreement and to repay outstanding borrowings under the PNM Revolving Credit Facility, the PNM New Mexico Credit Facility, and PNM’s intercompany loan from PNMR.

On December 17, 2015June 14, 2017, TNMP entered into an agreement, which provided that TNMP would issue $60.0 million aggregate principal amount of 3.53%3.22% first mortgage bonds due 2026, on or about February 10, 2016.August 25, 2017. TNMP issued the 2017 Series 2016AA Bonds on February 10, 2016August 24, 2017 and used the proceeds to reduce short-term and intercompany debt and intercompany debt.for general corporate purposes.

On July 20, 2017, PNM entered into the $200.0 million PNM 2017 Term Loan Agreement, which bears interest at a variable rate and must be repaid on or before January 18, 2019. PNM used the proceeds of the PNM 2017 Term Loan Agreement to prepay the $175.0 million PNM 2016 Term Loan Agreement, which was to mature on November 17, 2017, and to reduce short-term borrowings.

On July 28, 2017, PNM entered into the PNM 2017 Senior Unsecured Note Agreement with institutional investors for the sale of $450.0 million aggregate principal amount of eight series of Senior Unsecured Notes (the “PNM 2018 SUNs”) offered in private placement transactions. PNM has agreed to issue $350.0 million of the PNM 2018 SUNs (at fixed annual interest rates ranging from 3.15% to 4.50% for terms between 5 and 30 years) on or about May 15, 2018 and $100.0 million of the PNM 2018 SUNs (at fixed annual interest rates of 3.78% and 4.60% for terms of 10 and 30 years) on or about August 1, 2018. The issuances of the PNM 2018 SUNs are subject to the satisfaction of customary conditions. PNM will use the gross proceeds from the PNM 2018 SUNs to pay $350.0 million of PNM’s 7.95% Senior Unsecured Notes that mature on May 15, 2018 and $100.0 million of PNM’s 7.50% Senior Unsecured Notes that mature on August 1, 2018.


A - 59



On December 21, 2015,2016, PNMR amended and restatedentered into two term loan agreements: (1) the $100.0 million PNMR 2016 One-Year Term Loan Agreement by entering intothat was to mature on December 21, 2017; and (2) the $100.0 million PNMR Third Amended and Restated2016 Two-Year Term Loan Agreement that increased the amountmatures on December 21, 2018. The proceeds of the loanterm loans were used to repay the $150.0 million and extended its maturity to December 21, 2016.

PNMR, PNM, and TNMP are subject to debt-to-capital ratio requirements of less than or equal to 65%.  These ratios for PNMR and PNM include the present value of payments under the PVNGS leases as debt. At December 31, 2015, interest rates on outstanding borrowings were 1.26% for thetwelve-month PNMR Term Loan Agreement 1.22%and to reduce borrowings under the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility. On December 15, 2017, PNMR amended the PNMR 2016 One-Year Term Loan to extend the maturity date to December 14, 2018.

At December 31, 2017, variable interest rates were 2.34% for the PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement, 2.32% for the PNMR 2016 One-Year Term Loan (as extended), 2.32% for the PNMR 2016 Two-Year Term Loan, and 0.99%2.29% for the PNM Multi-draw2017 Term Loan.Loan Agreement.

As discussedPNMR has a hedging agreement whereby it effectively established a fixed interest rate of 1.927%, subject to change if there is a change in Note 16, NM Capital, a wholly owned subsidiary ofPNMR’s credit rating, for borrowings under the $150.0 million PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement for the period from January 11, 2016 through its maturity on March 9, 2018. In 2017, PNMR entered into three separate four-year hedging agreements whereby it effectively established fixed interest rates of 1.926%, 1.823%, and 1.629%, plus customary spreads over LIBOR, subject to change if there is a $125.0change in PNMR’s credit rating, for three separate tranches, each of $50.0 million, term loan agreement (the “BTMU Term Loan Agreement”), among NM Capital,of its variable rate debt. The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. (“BTMU”), as lender, and BTMU, as Administrative Agent, as of February 1, 2016. The BTMU Term Loan Agreement has a maturity date of February 1, 2021 and bears interest at a rate based on LIBOR plus a customary spread. PNMR, as parent company of NM Capital, has guaranteed NM Capital’s obligations. NM Capital utilized the proceedsFinance Committee of the BTMU Term Loan AgreementBoard has authorized management to provide fundingenter into additional transactions to hedge against exposure to changes in interest rates on its variable rate debt of $125.0 millionup to a ring-fenced, bankruptcy-remote, special-purpose entity that is a subsidiaryan additional notional amount of Westmoreland Coal Company to finance the purchase price of the stock of SJCC.$150.0 million.
Capital Requirements
TotalPNMR’s total capital requirements consist of construction expenditures and cash dividend requirements for PNMR common stock and PNM preferred stock. Key activities in PNMR’s current construction program include:
Upgrading generation resources, including expenditures for compliance with environmental requirements and for renewable energy resources
Expanding the electric transmission and distribution systems
Purchasing nuclear fuel

A- 48



Projected capital requirements for 2016-20202018-2022 are:    
2016 2017-2020 Total2018 2019-2022 Total
(In millions)(In millions)
Construction expenditures$546.8
 $1,490.2
 $2,037.0
$500.2
 $2,211.9
 $2,712.1
Dividends on PNMR common stock70.1
 280.4
 350.5
84.4
 337.7
 422.1
Dividends on PNM preferred stock0.5
 2.1
 2.6
0.5
 2.1
 2.6
Total capital requirements$617.4
 $1,772.7
 $2,390.1
$585.1
 $2,551.7
 $3,136.8

The construction expenditure estimates are under continuing review and subject to ongoing adjustment, as well as to Board review and approval. The construction expenditures above include $100.8 million related to the identified sources of replacement capacity under the revised plan for compliance described in Note 16, environmental upgrades of $3.0 million at SJGS and $88.7$7.9 million at Four Corners, $72.8 million for 50 MW of new solar facilities included in PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan, approximately $170 million for an anticipated expansion of PNM’s transmission system, and approximately $100 million in 2021 and $300 million in 2022 for the January 2016 purchasecosts of replacement resources related to the potential shutdown of SJGS Units 1 and 4 in 2022. See Note 17. Expenditures for the expansion of PNM’s transmission system and SJGS replacement resources are subject to obtaining necessary approvals of the assets underlying three ofNMPRC. PNM will be required to file CCN applications with the PVNGS Unit 2 leases at the expiration ofNMPRC to obtain those leases for $163.3 million.approvals. Expenditures for environmental upgrades are estimated to be $46.9$7.9 million in 2016.2018. See Note 16 and Commitments and Contractual Obligations below. The ability of PNMR to pay dividends on its common stock is dependent upon the ability of PNM and TNMP to be able to pay dividends to PNMR. Note 5 describes regulatory and contractual restrictions on the payment of dividends by PNM and TNMP.
During the year ended December 31, 20152017, PNMR met its capital requirements and construction expenditures through cash generated from operations, as well as its liquidity arrangements and the additional borrowings described underdiscussed in Financing Activities above.

In addition to the capital requirements for construction expenditures and dividends, the Company has long-term debt and term loans that must be paid or refinanced at maturity. PNMR’s $118.8The $150.0 million of 9.25% Senior Unsecured Notes, Series A matured and were repaid on May 15, 2015; $39.3 million of PNM’s PCRBs were subject to mandatory tender for remarketing on June 1,PNMR 2015 (the bonds were remarketed on that date and are next subject to mandatory tender for remarketing on June 1, 2020); the $175.0 million PNM 2014 Term Loan Agreement was repaidmatures on August 12, 2015;March 9, 2018, the $100.0 million PNM 2016 One-Year Term Loan (as extended) matures on December 14, 2018, and the $125.0$100 million PNM Multi-draw2016 Two-Year Term Loan matures on JuneDecember 21, 2016.2018. Also, $350.0 million of PNM Senior Unsecured Notes mature on May 15, 2018 and $100.0 million of PNM Senior Unsecured Notes mature on August 1, 2018. As described above, PNM entered into the PNM 2017 Senior Unsecured Note Agreement on July 28, 2017. Proceeds from the $450.0 million of the PNM 2018 SUNs to be issued under that agreement will be used to repay the senior unsecured notes that mature on May 15, 2018 and

A - 60



August 1, 2018. The BTMU Term Loan Agreement requires that NM Capital utilize all amounts, less taxes and fees, it receives under the Westmoreland Loan to repay the BTMU Term Loan Agreement. Based on scheduled payments on the Westmoreland Loan, NM Capital estimates it will make principal payments of $10.6 million on the BTMU Term Loan Agreement in the year ended December 31, 2018, including $5.0 million paid on February 1, 2018. Note 6 contains additional information about the maturities of long-term debt. Also, the one-year $150.0 million PNMR Term Loan Agreement matures on December 21, 2016. PNMR and PNM anticipate that funds to repay thethese long-term debt maturities and term loans will come from entering into new arrangements similar to the existing agreements, borrowing under their revolving credit facilities, issuance of new long-term debt in the public or private capital markets, or a combination of these sources. The Company has from time to time refinanced or repurchased portions of its outstanding debt before scheduled maturity. Depending on market conditions, the Company may refinance other debt issuances or make additional debt repurchases in the future.
Liquidity
PNMR’s liquidity arrangements include the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility, and the PNM Revolving Credit Facility, both of which have been extended to expire in October 2020 and the TNMP Revolving Credit Facility that expires in September 2018. TheFacility. Currently, the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility has a financing capacity of $300.0 million, the PNM Revolving Credit Facility has a financing capacity of $400.0 million, and the TNMP Revolving Credit Facility has a financing capacity of $75.0 million. PNMR and PNM also hasentered into agreements to extend the maturity of the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility and the PNM Revolving Credit Facility to October 31, 2022. However, one lender, whose current commitment is $10.0 million under the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility and $40.0 million under the PNM Revolving Credit Facility, did not agree to extend its commitment beyond October 31, 2020. Unless one or more of the other current lenders or a new lender assumes the commitments of the non-extending lender, the financing capacities will be reduced to $290.0 million for the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility and $360.0 million for the PNM Revolving Credit Facility from November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2022. On September 25, 2017, the TNMP Revolving Credit Facility was amended and restated to extend its maturity from September 18, 2018 to September 23, 2022. PNM had the $50.0 million PNM 2014 New Mexico Credit Facility which expireswith banks having a significant presence in New Mexico that was scheduled to expire on January 8, 2018. On December 12, 2017, PNM entered into the PNM 2017 New Mexico Credit Facility, a similar $40.0 million unsecured revolving credit facility to replace the PNM 2014 New Mexico Credit Facility. The PNM 2017 New Mexico Credit Facility expires on December 12, 2022. The Company believes the terms and conditions of these facilities are consistent with those of other investment grade revolving credit facilities in the utility industry. The Company expects that it will be able to extend or replace these credit facilities under similar terms and conditions prior to their expirations.
The revolving credit facilities and the PNM 2017 New Mexico Credit Facility provide short-term borrowing capacity. The revolving credit facilities also allow letters of credit to be issued. Letters of credit reduce the available capacity under the facilities. The Company utilizes these credit facilities and cash flows from operations to provide funds for both construction and operational expenditures. The Company’s business is seasonal with more revenues and cash flows from operations being generated in the summer months. In general, the Company relies on the credit facilities to be the initial funding source for construction expenditures. Accordingly, borrowings under the facilities may increase over time. Depending on market and other conditions, the Company will periodically sell long-term debt and use the proceeds to reduce the borrowings under the credit facilities. Borrowings underInformation regarding the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility ranged from zero to $45.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2015, zero to $21.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2014, and zero to $84.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2013. Suchrange of borrowings ranged from zero to $45.3 million during the three months ended December 31, 2015. Borrowings underfor each facility is as follows:
  Three Months Ended Year Ended December 31
  December 31, 2017 2017 2016 2015
Range of Borrowings Low High Low High Low High Low High
  (In millions)
PNM:                
PNM Revolving Credit Facility $
 $65.0
 $
 $65.0
 $
 $135.0
 $
 $48.4
PNM New Mexico facilities (1)
 
 
 
 26.0
 
 50.0
 
 20.0
TNMP Revolving Credit Facility 
 23.8
 
 53.0
 
 70.0
 
 64.0
PNMR Revolving Credit Facility 117.7
 194.7
 111.8
 235.3
 40.0
 179.5
 
 45.3
(1) Includes both the PNM Revolving Credit Facility ranged from zero to $48.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2015, zero to $82.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2014 and zero to $130.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2013. Such borrowings ranged from zero to $32.2 million during the three months ended December 31, 2015. Borrowings under the PNM New Mexico Credit Facility ranged from zero to $20.0 million duringand the year ended December 31, 2015 and zero to $25.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2014. There were no such borrowings in 2013 or during the three months ended December 31, 2015. Borrowings under the TNMP RevolvingPNM 2017 New Mexico Credit Facility ranged from zero to $64.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2015,

A- 49



from zero to $30.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2014, and from zero to $40.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2013. Such borrowings ranged from $12.0 million to $64.0 million during the three months ended December 31, 2015. At December 31, 2015,2017, the average interest rates on outstanding borrowings were 1.67%2.76% for the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility and 1.29%2.59% for the PNM Revolving Credit Facility. There were no borrowings outstanding under the PNM 2017 New Mexico Facility or the TNMP Revolving Credit Facility. The PNM Revolving Credit Facility and the PNM New Mexico Credit Facility had no borrowings outstanding at December 31, 2015.2017.
The Company currently believes that its capital requirements for at least the next twelve months can be met through internal cash generation, existing, extended, or new credit arrangements, and access to public and private capital markets. The Company anticipates that it will be necessary to obtain additional long-term financing to fund its capital requirements during the 2018-2022

A - 61



period. This could include new debt and/or equity issuances. The Company currently anticipates utilizing a three-year at-the-market equity issuance program to raise equity beginning in 2020 to partially fund capital requirements. This at-the-market program should provide a flexible, efficient, and low-cost way to issue equity as needed. The Company also expects to issue new debt periodically to fund capital investments. To cover the difference in the amounts and timing of internal cash generation and cash requirements, the Company intends to use short-term borrowings under its current and future liquidity arrangements. However, if difficult market conditions experienced during the recent recession return, the Company may not be able to access the capital markets or renew credit facilities when they expire. Should that occur, the Company would seek to improve cash flows by reducing capital expenditures and exploring other available alternatives. Also, PNM could consider seeking authorization for the issuance of first mortgage bonds to improve access to the capital markets.
In addition to its internal cash generation, the Company anticipates that it will be necessary to obtain additional long-term financing to fund its capital requirements during the 2016-2020 period. This could include new debt issuances and/or new equity.
As discussed above, PNMR retired the 9.25% Senior Unsecured Notes, Series A when they matured on May 15, 2015, which results in PNMR havingcurrently has no senior unsecured notes outstanding. Following this repayment, Moody’s and S&P withdrew their ratings of PNMR senior unsecured debt. On June 22, 2015, Moody’s assigned an issuer rating of Baa3 to PNMR, upgraded the issuer rating of TNMP to A3 from Baa1, upgraded the senior secured debt rating of TNMP to A1 from A2, and changed the outlook for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP to stable from positive. On December 21, 2015, S&P raised by one notch the issuer credit ratings for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP and the debt ratings for PNM and TNMP, with a stable outlook. Currently,In June 2017, Moody’s changed the outlook for PNMR and PNM from stable to positive while maintaining a stable outlook for TNMP. On January 16, 2018, S&P changed the outlook for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP from stable to negative while affirming the ratings set forth below for all of the credit ratings issued by both Moody’s and S&P on the Company’s debt are investment grade.entities. As of February 19, 201620, 2018, ratings on the Company’s securities were as follows:
 PNMR PNM TNMP
S&P     
CorporateIssuer ratingBBB+ BBB+ BBB+
Senior secured debt* * A
Senior unsecured debt* BBB+ *
Preferred stock* BBB- *
Moody’s     
Issuer ratingBaa3 Baa2 A3
Senior secured debt* * A1
Senior unsecured debt* Baa2 *
* Not applicable     

Currently, all of the credit ratings issued by both Moody’s and S&P on the Company’s debt are investment grade. However, the ultimate outcomes from PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and NM 2016 Rate Case, including the pending appeals before the NM Supreme Court, as discussed in Note 17, could affect both the outlook and credit ratings. Investors are cautioned that a security rating is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold securities, that iteach rating is subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the assigning rating organization, and that each rating should be evaluated independently of any other rating.

A- 50



A summary of liquidity arrangements as of February 19, 201620, 2018 is as follows:
 
PNMR
Separate
 
PNM
Separate
 
TNMP
Separate
 
PNMR
Consolidated
   (In millions)  
Financing capacity:       
Revolving credit facility$300.0
 $400.0
 $75.0
 $775.0
PNM New Mexico Credit Facility
 50.0
 
 50.0
Total financing capacity$300.0
 $450.0
 $75.0
 $825.0
Amounts outstanding as of February 19, 2016:       
Revolving credit facility$66.1
 $46.2
 $15.0
 $127.3
PNM New Mexico Credit Facility
 50.0
 
 50.0
Letters of credit46.2
 3.2
 0.1
 49.5
Total short term-debt and letters of credit112.3
 99.4
 15.1
 226.8
Remaining availability as of February 19, 2016$187.7
 $350.6
 $59.9
 $598.2
Invested cash as of February 19, 2016$1.9
 $
 $
 $1.9
 
PNMR
Separate
 
PNM
Separate
 
TNMP
Separate
 
PNMR
Consolidated
   (In millions)  
Financing capacity:       
Revolving credit facility$300.0
 $400.0
 $75.0
 $775.0
PNM 2017 New Mexico Credit Facility
 40.0
 
 40.0
Total financing capacity$300.0
 $440.0
 $75.0
 $815.0
Amounts outstanding as of February 20, 2018:       
Revolving credit facility$182.4
 $57.4
 $23.9
 $263.7
PNM 2017 New Mexico Credit Facility
 20.0
 
 20.0
Letters of credit6.4
 2.5
 0.1
 9.0
Total short-term debt and letters of credit188.8
 79.9
 24.0
 292.7
Remaining availability as of February 20, 2018$111.2
 $360.1
 $51.0
 $522.3
Invested cash as of February 20, 2018$0.9
 $
 $
 $0.9
TheIn addition to the above, table includes a $40.0PNMR had $30.3 million letterof letters of credit issuedoutstanding under the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility to facilitate the posting of reclamation bonds by a surety in connection with the purchase of SJCC by a subsidiary of Westmoreland from BHP. See Note 16.JPM LOC Facility. The above table excludes intercompany debt. As of February 19, 2016,20, 2018, PNM and TNMP had $15.1 million inno intercompany borrowings from PNMR.

A - 62



The remaining availability under the revolving credit facilities at any point in time varies based on a number of factors, including the timing of collections of accounts receivables and payments for construction and operating expenditures.

On February 26, 2018, PNMR Development entered into a $24.5 million revolving credit facility that matures on February 25, 2019. The facility bears interest at a variable rate and contains terms similar to the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility. PNMR has guaranteed the obligations of PNMR Development under the facility. PNMR Development anticipates using the facility to finance its participation in NMRD (Note 1).
PNMR can offer new shares of common stock through the PNM Resources Direct Plan under a SEC shelf registration statement that expires in August 2018. PNM has a shelf registration statement for up to $250.0$475.0 million of senior unsecured notesSenior Unsecured Notes that expires in May 2017.2020.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
PNMR’s off-balance sheet arrangements include PNM’s operating leases for portions of PVNGS Units 1 and 2 and, until April 1, 2015, the EIP transmission line. These arrangements help ensure PNM the availability of lower-cost generation needed to serve customers.
In 1985 and 1986, PNM consummated sale and leaseback transactions for its interest in PVNGS Units 1 and 2. The original purpose of the sale-leaseback financing was to lower revenue requirements and to levelize the ratemaking impact of PVNGS being placed in-service. The lease payments reflected lower capital costs as the equity investors were able to capitalize the investment with greater leverage than PNM and because the sale transferred tax benefits that PNM could not fully utilize. Under traditional ratemaking, the capital costs of ownership of a major rate base addition, such as a nuclear plant, are front-end loaded. Theloaded with higher revenue requirements are high in the initial years andthat decline over the life of the plant as depreciation occurs. By contrast, the revenue requirements for lease payments are level over the lease term. The leases, which were scheduled to expire in 2015 and 2016, contained options to renew the leases at a fixed price or to purchase the property for fair market value.
As discussed in Note 7, PNM and the lessors under each of the PVNGS Unit 1 leases entered into amendments to those leases that extended the leases through January 15, 2023 from their original expiration on January 15, 2015. In addition, PNM entered into an amendment with the lessor under one of the PVNGS Unit 2 leases that extended that lease through January 15, 2024 from its original expiration on January 15, 2016. PNM entered into agreements with the lessors under the other three PVNGS Unit 2 leases under which PNM exercised its option to purchase the assets underlying the leases at the agreed to fair market values aggregating $163.3 million at the expiration of the leases on January 15, 2016. The semiannual renewal payments aggregate $8.3 million under the PVNGS Unit 1 leases and are $0.8 million for the one renewed PVNGS Unit 2 lease. See Sources of Power in Part I, Item 1 Investments in Note 1, and Note 7 for additional information.

A- 51



The future lease payments for 2016 shown below for the PVNGS leases have been reduced by $9.0 million returned to PNM through its ownership in related lessor notes and include the renewals described above.are shown below.
PVNGS
Units 1&2
PVNGS
Units 1&2
(In thousands)(In thousands)
2016$20,589
201718,139
201818,139
$18,139
201918,139
18,139
202018,139
18,139
202118,139
202218,139
Thereafter46,985
10,705
Total$140,130
$101,400
For reasons similar to the PVNGS sale and leaseback transactions, PNM built the EIP transmission line and sold it in sale and leaseback transactions in 1985. Prior to April 1, 2015, PNM owned 60% and operated the other 40% of the EIP line under the terms of a lease agreement. The lease, which contained fixed-rate and fair market value renewal options and a fair market value purchase option, expired on April 1, 2015. PNM exercised its option to purchase the leased assets at expiration of the lease at the agreed to fair market value of $7.7 million. See Note 7.

A - 63



Commitments and Contractual Obligations
The following table sets forth PNMR’s long-term contractual obligations as of December 31, 20152017. See Note 7 for further details about the Company’s significant leases:leases.
 Payments Due Payments Due
Contractual Obligations 2016 2017-2018 2019-2020 2021 and Thereafter Total 2018 2019-2020 2021-2022 2023 and Thereafter Total
 (In thousands) (In thousands)
Long-term debt (a) $125,000
 $657,025
 $272,647
 $1,031,698
 $2,086,370
 $257,293
 $510,866
 $367,650
 $1,295,698
 $2,431,507
Interest on long-term debt (b) 113,556
 214,133
 115,973
 637,407
 1,081,069
 110,771
 159,647
 132,460
 708,144
 1,111,022
Operating leases (c) 29,825
 51,311
 50,387
 108,990
 240,513
 26,802
 50,846
 50,244
 60,708
 188,600
Transmission reservation payments 14,166
 23,408
 6,171
 11,084
 54,829
Transmission service arrangements 16,956
 21,102
 17,793
 9,440
 65,291
Coal contracts (d) 74,243
 101,026
 67,514
 409,351
 652,134
 104,782
 224,477
 192,507
 375,941
 897,707
Coal mine decommissioning (e) 9,674
 15,640
 7,229
 184,627
 217,170
Coal mine decommissioning (e) (f)
 10,689
 22,469
 24,498
 157,772
 215,428
Nuclear decommissioning funding requirements (f) 2,637
 5,274
 5,274
 8,614
 21,799
 2,637
 5,274
 5,274
 
 13,185
SJGS decommissioning funding requirements 
 
 16,920
 
 16,920
Outsourcing 4,947
 3,527
 
 
 8,474
 4,555
 3,430
 
 
 7,985
Pension and retiree medical (g) 5,452
 10,842
 10,736
 
 27,030
 1,936
 3,778
 9,092
 
 14,806
Construction expenditures (h) 546,818
 812,744
 677,395
 
 2,036,957
Total (i) $926,318
 $1,894,930
 $1,213,326
 $2,391,771
 $6,426,345
Equity contributions to NMRD(h)
 7,700
 
 
 
 7,700
Construction expenditures (i)
 500,205
 1,027,235
 1,184,627
 
 2,712,067
Total (j)
 $1,044,326
 $2,029,124
 $2,001,065
 $2,607,703
 $7,682,218

(a)
Represents total long-term debt, excluding unamortized discounts, premiums, and issuance costs (Note 6); does not include NM Capital’s $125.0 million BTMU Term Loan Agreement entered into on February 1, 2016 and TNMP’s $60.0 million of 3.53% first mortgage bonds issued on February 10, 2016, as discussed above
(b)
Represents interest payments during the period
(c)
The operating lease amounts include payments under the PVNGS leases through the expiration of the leases, including renewal periods for leases for which PNM has renewed; the amounts in the above table are net of amounts returned to PNM in 2016 as payments on its investments in related PVNGS lessor notes;leases; see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements above, Investments in Note 1, Note 7, and Note 9
(d)
Represents only certain minimum payments that may be required under the coal contracts in effect on December 31, 20152017 if no deliveries are made; under the CSA to supply coal to SJGS, which became effective at 11:59 PM on January 31, 2016, the minimum payments increased by between $76 million and $96 million per year in 2016 through 2020 and by a total of $84 million for 2021 through 2032taken

A- 52



(e)
Includes funding of trusts for post-term reclamation related to the mines serving SJGS and Four Corners (Note 16)
(f)
These obligations represent funding based on the current rate of return on investments
(g)
The Company only forecasts funding for its pension and retiree medical plans for the next five years
(h)
Represents commitments to fund NMRD for its contractual construction obligations
(i)
Represents forecasted construction expenditures, including nuclear fuel, under which substantial commitments have been made (Note 14);made; the Company only forecasts capital expenditures for the next five years; the construction expenditures include the purchase of the assets underlying three of the PVNGS Unit 2 leases at the expiration of those leases on January 15, 2016 for $163.3 million; see Capital Requirements above and Note 714
(i)
(j)
PNMR is unable to reasonably estimate the timing of liability for uncertain income tax positions (Note 11) in individual years due to uncertainties in the timing of the effective settlement of tax positions and, therefore, PNMR’s liability of $6.5$9.4 million is not reflected in this table; amounts PNM is obligated to pay Valencia are not included above since Valencia is consolidated by PNM in accordance with GAAP, as discussed in Note 9; no amounts are included above for the New Mexico Wind, Lightning Dock Geothermal, and Red Mesa Wind PPAs and Tri-State hazard sharing agreement since there are no minimum payments required under those agreements

Contingent Provisions of Certain Obligations
PNMR, PNM, and TNMP have a number of debt obligations and other contractual commitments that contain contingent provisions. Some of these, if triggered, could affect the liquidity of the Company. In the unlikely event that the contingent requirements were to be triggered, PNMR, PNM, or TNMP could be required to provide security, immediately pay outstanding obligations, or be prevented from drawing on unused capacity under certain credit agreements. The most significant consequences resulting from these contingent requirements are detailed in the discussion below.
The PNMR Revolving Credit Facility, PNM Revolving Credit Facility, PNM 2017 New Mexico Credit Facility, and TNMP Revolving Credit Facility, and the PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement contain “ratings triggers,” for pricing purposes only. If PNMR, PNM, or TNMP is downgraded or upgraded by the ratings agencies, the result would be an increase or decrease in interest cost. In addition, these facilities, as well as the Company’s other term loans, each contain a covenant requiring the maintenance

A - 64



of debt-to-capital ratios of not more than 65%. For PNMR and PNM, the present value of payments under the PVNGS leases are considered debt. If that ratio were to exceed 65%, the entity could be required to repay all borrowings under its facility, be prevented from borrowing on the unused capacity under the facility, and be required to provide collateral for all outstanding letters of credit issued under the facility. Note 16 discusses circumstances under the Bond Reclamation Agreement that could obligate PNMR to provide additional collateral to the surety in connection with the reclamation bonds posted by the surety in connection with the purchase of SJCC by Westmoreland.
If a contingent requirement were to be triggered under the PNM facilities resulting in an acceleration of the repayment of outstanding loans, a cross-default provision in the PVNGS leases could occur if the accelerated amount is not paid. If a cross-default provision is triggered, the PVNGS lessors have the ability to accelerate their rights under the leases, including acceleration of all future lease payments. The Company’s revolving credit facilities and term loan agreements also include cross-default provisions.
PNM’s standard purchase agreement for the procurement of natural gas for its fuel needs contains a contingent requirement that could require PNM to provide collateral for its gas purchase obligations if the seller were to reasonably believe that PNM was unable to fulfill its payment obligations under the agreement.
The master agreement for the sale of electricity in the WSPP contains a contingent requirement that could require PNM to provide collateral if the credit ratings on its debt falls below investment grade. The WSPP agreement also contains a contingent requirement, commonly called a material adverse change provision, which could require PNM to provide collateral if a material adverse change in its financial condition or operations were to occur. Additionally, PNM utilizes standard derivative contracts to financially hedge and trade energy. These agreements contain contingent requirements that require PNM to provide security if the credit rating on its debt falls below investment grade. The Company believes its financing arrangements are sufficient to meet the requirements of the contingent provisions.

No conditions have occurred that would result in any of the above contingent provisions being implemented.


A- 53



Capital Structure
The capitalization tables below include the current maturities of long-term debt, but do not include short-term debt and do not include operating lease obligations as debt.
December 31,December 31,
PNMR2015 20142017 2016
PNMR common equity44.0% 46.6%40.9% 41.1%
Preferred stock of subsidiary0.3% 0.3%0.3% 0.3%
Long-term debt55.7% 53.1%58.8% 58.6%
Total capitalization100.0% 100.0%100.0% 100.0%
PNM      
PNM common equity45.3% 45.8%46.0% 46.0%
Preferred stock0.4% 0.4%0.4% 0.4%
Long-term debt54.3% 53.8%53.6% 53.6%
Total capitalization100.0% 100.0%100.0% 100.0%
TNMP      
Common equity59.6% 59.2%56.9% 58.5%
Long-term debt40.4% 40.8%43.1% 41.5%
Total capitalization100.0% 100.0%100.0% 100.0%

As discussed in Note 6, the Company adopted a new accounting standard during 2015 that required debt issuance costs, which were previously included in other deferred charges on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, to be reclassified as a reduction of the related long-term debt. The change was applied retroactively, which reduced the long-term debt portion of capitalization in 2014. The above table reflects changes to increase the common equity percentage and decrease the long-term percentage by 0.2% for PNMR, 0.1% for PNM, and 0.3% for TNMP from those previously shown for 2014.

OTHER ISSUES FACING THE COMPANY
Climate Change Issues

Background
For the past several years, management has identified multiple risks and opportunities related to climate change, including potential environmental regulation, technological innovation, and availability of fuel and water for operations, as among the most significant risks facing the Company. Accordingly, these risks are overseen by the full Board in order to facilitate more integrated risk and strategy oversight and planning. Board oversight includes understanding the various challenges and opportunities presented by these risks, including the financial consequences that might result from potential federal and/or state regulation of GHG; plans to mitigate the risks; and the impacts these risks may have on the Company’s strategy. In addition, the Board approves certain PNM investments in environmental equipment and grid modernization technologies.

A - 65




Management periodically updates the Board on implementation of the corporate environmental policy and the Company’s environmental management systems, promotion of energy efficiency, and use of renewable resources.  The Board is also advised of the Company’s practices and procedures to assess the sustainability impacts of operations on the environment.  Management has recently published, with Board oversight, a Climate Change Report available at http://www.pnmresources.com/about-us/sustainability-portal.aspx, that details PNM’s efforts to transition to a coal-free generation portfolio. The Board considers issues associated with climate change, the Company’s GHG exposures, and the financial consequences that might result from potential federal and/or state regulation of GHG.

Changes in the climate are generally not expected to have material consequences to the Company in the near-term. The Company cannot anticipate or predict the potential long-term effects of climate change or climate change related regulation on its assets and operations.

GHG Exposures

In 2015,2017, GHG associated with PNM’s interests in its fossil-fueled generating plants included approximately 6.46.9 million metric tons of CO2, which comprises the vast majority of PNM’s GHG.  By comparison, the total GHG in the United States in 2013,2015, the latest year for which EPA has published thisfinal data, were approximately 6.76.6 billion metric tons (in CO2 equivalents), of which approximately 5.55.4 billion metric tons were CO2.

As of January 1, 2018, approximately 67.9% of PNM’s generating capacity, including resources owned, leased, and under PPAs, all of which is located within the United States, consisted of coal or gas-fired generation that produces GHG. This reflects the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 that occurred in December 2017 and the restructuring of ownership in SJGS Unit 4. These events reduced PNM’s entitlement in SJGS from 783 MW to 562 MW and will cause the Company’s output of GHG to decrease in 2018 compared to 2017. Many factors affect the amount of GHG emitted, including plant performance, economic dispatch, and the availability of renewable resources. For example, between 2007 and 2017, production from New Mexico Wind has varied from a high of 580 GWh in 2011 to a low of 405 GWh in 2014. Variations are primarily due to how much and how often the wind blows. In addition, if PVNGS experienced prolonged outages or if PNM’s entitlement from PVNGS were reduced, PNM might be required to utilize other power supply resources such as gas-fired generation, which could increase GHG.

PNM has several programs underway to reduce or offset GHG from its resource portfolio, thereby reducing its exposure to climate change regulation. See Note 17. As described in Note 16, PNM received approval for the December 31, 2017 shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 as part of its strategy to address the regional haze requirements of the CAA. The shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 is expected to result in a reduction of GHG for the entire station of approximately 50%, including an overall reduction of approximately 40% of GHG from the Company’s owned interests. In 2015,addition, as discussed in Note 17, PNM’s 2017 IRP indicates exiting ownership in the remaining SJGS units in 2022 and Four Corners in 2031 would provide long-term cost savings to its customers and would further reduce PNM’s GHG. PNM completed construction of 40 MW ofowns utility-scale solar generation bringing itswith a total solar generation capacity toof 107 MW. Since 2003, PNM has purchased the entire output of New Mexico Wind, which has an aggregate capacity of 204 MW, and, began purchasingsince January 2015, has purchased the full output of Red Mesa Wind, which has an aggregate capacity of 102 MW, in January 2015.MW. PNM has a 20-year PPA for the output of Lightning Dock Geothermal, which began providing power to PNM in January 2014. The current capacity of the geothermal facility is 4 MWMW. On November 15, 2017 the NMPRC approved PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan (Note 17). As a result, PNM will acquire an additional 80 GWh in 2019 and future expansion may result105 GWh in up to 92020 from a re-powering of New Mexico Wind; an additional 55 GWh in 2019 and 77 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal; and PNM will construct 50 MW of generation capacity.new solar facilities in 2018. Additionally, PNM has a customer distributed solar generation program that represented 49.581.6 MW at December 31, 2015.2017. PNM’s distributed solar programs will reduce PNM’s annual production from fossil-fueled electricity generation by about 120180 GWh. PNM offershas offered its customers a comprehensive portfolio of energy efficiency and load management programs since 2007, with a budget of $25.8$23.6 million for the 2018 program year beginning in June 2015. PNM estimatesyear. Cumulative annual savings from these programs savedwere approximately 79625 GWh of electricity in 2015.through 2017. Over the next 1820 years, PNM projects energy efficiency and load management programs will provide the equivalent of approximately 9,0009,600 GWh of electricity, which will avoid at least 5.55.2 million metric tons of CO2 based upon projected emissions from PNM’s system-wide resources. These estimates are subject to change because of the uncertainty of many of the underlying variables, including changes in demand for electricity, and complex relationships between those variables.

Management periodically updates the Board on implementation of the corporate environmental policy and the Company’s environmental management systems, promotion of energy efficiency, and use of renewable resources.  The Board is also advised

A- 54



of the Company’s practices and procedures to assess the sustainability impacts of operations on the environment.  The Board considers associated issues around climate change, the Company’s GHG exposures, and the financial consequences that might result from potential federal and/or state regulation of GHG.

As of December 31, 2015, approximately 70.2% of PNM’s generating capacity, including resources owned, leased, and under PPAs, all of which is located within the United States, consisted of coal or gas-fired generation that produces GHG. Based on current forecasts, the Company does not expect its output of GHG from existing sources to increase significantly in the near-term. Many factors affect the amount of GHG emitted. For example, if new natural gas-fired generation resources are added to meet increased load as anticipated in PNM’s current IRP, GHG would be incrementally increased. In addition, plant performance could impact the amount of GHG emitted. If PVNGS experienced prolonged outages, PNM might be required to utilize other power supply resources such as gas-fired generation, which could increase GHG. As described in Note 16, PNM received approval to shutdown SJGS Units 2 and 3 on December 31, 2017 as part of its strategy to address the regional haze requirements of the CAA. The shutdown of Units 2 and 3 would result in a reduction of GHG for the entire station of approximately 50%, including a reduction of approximately 28% for the Company’s ownership interests. Although replacement power strategies include some gas-fired generation, the reduction in GHG from the retirement of the coal-fired generation would be far greater than the increase in GHG from replacement generation.

Because of PNM’s dependence on fossil-fueled generation, legislation or regulation that imposes a limit or cost on GHG could impact the cost at which electricity is produced. While PNM expects to recover any such costs through rates, the timing and outcome of proceedings for cost recovery are uncertain. In addition, to the extent that any additional costs are recovered through rates, customers may reduce their usage, relocate facilities to other areas with lower energy costs, or take other actions that ultimately will adversely impact PNM.

Given
A - 66



Other Climate Change Risks

PNM’s generating stations are located in the geographic location of its facilities and customers, PNM generally has not been exposedarid southwest. Access to the extreme weather events and other physical impacts commonly attributed to climate change, with the exception of periodic drought conditions. Drought conditions in northwestern New Mexico could impact the availability of water for cooling coal-fired generating plants. Water shortage sharing agreements are in place with the more senior water rights holdersfor some of these facilities is critical to mutually sharecontinued operations. Forecasts for the impacts of climate change on water shortages although no shortage has been declared due to sufficient precipitationsupply in the San Juan River basin. These agreements have been extendedsouthwest range from reduced precipitation to changes in the timing of precipitation. In either case, PNM’s generating facilities requiring water for cooling will need to mitigate the impacts of climate change through 2016.  adaptive measures. Current measures employed by PNM generating stations such as air cooling, use of grey water, improved reservoir operations, and shortage sharing arrangements with other water users will continue to be important to sustain operations.

PNM’s service areas alsooccasionally experience periodic high winds, forest fires, and severe thunderstorms. TNMP has operations in the Gulf Coast area of Texas, which experiences periodic hurricanes and drought conditions. In addition to potentially causing physical damage to TNMP-ownedCompany-owned facilities, which disruptdisrupts the ability to transmit and/or distribute energy, hurricanesweather and other events of nature can temporarily reduce customers’ usage and demand for energy. Climate changes are generallyDuring the third quarter of 2017, Hurricane Harvey had significant impacts on the Gulf Coast region, including certain areas serviced by TNMP. While Hurricane Harvey did not expectedhave a significant impact on TNMP’s facilities, the hurricane impacted customer usage and could impact future usage or create resource constraints that could delay or disrupt the supply of materials necessary to have material consequences to the Company in the near-term.maintain historical levels of system reliability.

EPA Regulation

In April 2007, the USSCUS Supreme Court held that EPA has the authority to regulate GHG under the CAA.  This decision heightened the importance of this issue for the energy industry.  In December 2009, EPA released its endangerment finding for emissions from new motor vehicles, stating that the atmospheric concentrations of six key greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, nitrous oxides, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations. In May 2010, EPA released the final PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (the “Tailoring Rule”) to address GHG from stationary sources under the CAA permitting programs. The purpose of the rule was to “tailor” the applicability of two programs, the PSD construction permit and Title V operating permit programs, to avoid impacting millions of small GHG emitters. The rule focused on the largest sources of GHG, including fossil-fueled electric generating units. This program covered the construction of new emission units that emit GHG of at least 100,000 tons per year in CO2 equivalents (even if PSD is not triggered for other pollutants). In addition, modifications at existing major-emitting facilities that increase GHG by at least 75,000 tons per year in CO2 equivalents would be subject to PSD permitting requirements, even if they did not significantly increase emissions of any other pollutant. As a result, PNM’s fossil-fueled generating plants were more likely to trigger PSD permitting requirements because of the magnitude of GHG. However as discussed below, a court case in 2014 now limits the extent of the Tailoring Rule.

On June 26, 2012, the D.C. Circuit rejected challenges to EPA’s 2009 GHG endangerment finding, GHG standards for light-duty vehicles, PSD Interpretive Memorandum (EPA’s so-called GHG “Timing Rule”), and the Tailoring Rule. The Court found that EPA’s endangerment finding and its light-duty vehicle rule “are neither arbitrary nor capricious,” that “EPA’s interpretation of the governing CAA provisions is unambiguously correct,” and that “no petitioner has standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules.” On October 15, 2013, the USSC granted a petition for a Writ of Certiorari regarding the permitting of stationary sources that emit GHG. The USSC limited the question that it would review to: “Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.” Specifically, the case dealt with whether EPA’s determination that regulation of GHG from motor vehicles required EPA to regulate stationary sources under the PSD and Title V permitting programs. The

A- 55



petitioners argued that EPA’s determination that it was required to regulate GHG under the PSD and Title V Programs was unlawful as it violates Congressional intent.

On June 23, 2014, the USSC issued its opinion on the above case. The USSC largely reversed the D.C. Circuit. First, the USSC found the CAA does not compel or permit EPA to adopt an interpretation of the act that requires a source to obtain a PSD or Title V permit on the sole basis of its potential GHG. Second, EPA had argued that even if it was not required to regulate GHGs under the PSD and Title V programs, the Tailoring Rule was nonetheless justified on the grounds that it was a reasonable interpretation of the CAA. The USSC rejected this argument. Third, the USSCUS Supreme Court found EPA lacked authority to “tailor” the CAA’s unambiguous numerical thresholds of 100 or 250 tons per year. Fourth,year, and thus held EPA may not require a source to obtain a PSD permit solely on the USSC found that it would be reasonable for EPAbasis of its potential GHG emissions. However, the court upheld EPA’s authority to interpret the CAA to limitapply the PSD program for GHGs to “anyway” sources - those sources that have to comply with the PSD program for other non-GHG pollutants. The USSC said that EPA needed to establish a de minimis level below which BACT would not be required for “anyway” sources.

On June 25, 2013, then President Obama announced his Climate Action Plan, which outlinesoutlined how his administration plansplanned to cut GHG in the United States, prepare the country for the impacts of climate change, and lead international efforts to combat and prepare for global warming. The plan proposesproposed actions that would lead to the reduction of GHG by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. The President also issued a Presidential Memorandum to EPA to continue development of the GHG NSPS regulations for electric generators. The Presidential Memorandum establishes a timeline for the reproposal and issuance of a GHG NSPS for new sources and a timeline for the proposal and final rule for developing carbon pollution standards, regulations, or guidelines for GHG reductions from existing sources under Section 111(d) of the CAA. The Presidential Memorandum further directs EPA to allow the use of “market-based instruments” and “other regulatory flexibilities” to ensure standards will allow for continued reliance on a range of energy sources and technologies and that they are developed and implemented in a manner that provides for reliable and affordable energy and to undertake the rulemaking through direct engagement with states, “as they will play a central role in establishing and implementing standards for existing power plants,” and with utility leaders, labor leaders, non-governmental organizations, tribal officials, and other stakeholders.

EPA met the President’s timeline for issuance of carbon pollution standards for new sources under Section 111(b) and for existing sources under Section 111(d) of the CAA. On August 3, 2015, EPA issued its final standardsresponded to limit CO2 emissions from power plants. The final rule was published on October 23, 2015. Threethe Climate Action Plan by issuing three separate but related actions took place:actions: (1) the final Carbon Pollution Standards for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants were established (under Section 111(b)); (2) the final Clean Power Plan was issued to set standards for carbon emission reductions from existing power plants (under Section 111(d)); and (3) a proposed federal plan associated with the final Clean Power Plan was released.Plan.

EPA’s final ruleCarbon Pollution Standards for new sources (those constructed after January 8, 2014) established separate standards for gas- and coal-fired units. The standards reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of what EPA determined to limit GHG emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed power establishes standards based upon certain, specific conditions.be the best system of emission reduction (“BSER”) demonstrated for each type of unit. For newly constructed and reconstructed base load natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines, the EPA finalized a standard of 1,000 lb CO2/MWh-gross based on efficient natural gas combined cycled technology as the best system of emissions reductions (“BSER”). Alternatively, owners and operators of base load natural gas-fired combustion turbines may elect to comply with a standard based on an output of 1,030 lb CO2/MWh-net. A new source is any newly constructed fossil fuel-fired power plant that commenced construction after January 8, 2014.

cycle technology. The final standards for coal-fired power plants vary depending on whether the unit is new, modified, or reconstructed. The BSER for new steam units is a supercritical pulverized coal unit with partial carbon capture and storage. Based on that technology, new coal-fired units will be required to meet an emissions standard equal to 1,400 lbs CO2/MWh from the beginning of the power plant’s life. The BSER for modified units is based on each affected unit’s own best potential performance. Standards will be in the form of an emission limit in pounds of CO2 per MWh, which will apply to units with modifications resulting in an increase of hourly CO2 emissions of more than 10% relative to the emissions of the most recent five years from that unit. The BSER for reconstructed coal-fired power units is the performance of the most efficient generating technology for these types of units. Final emissions standards depend on heat input. Sources with heat input greater than 2,000 MMBTU/hour would be required to meet an emission limit of 1,800 lbs CO2/MWh-gross, and sources with a heat input of less than or equal to 2,000 MMBTU/hour would be required to meet an emission limit of 2,000 lbs CO2/MWh-gross.

The final Clean Power Plan rule changed significantly in structure from the proposed rule that was released in June 2014. Changes include delaying the first compliance date by two years from 2020 to 2022; adopting a new approach to calculating the emission targets which resulted in different state goals than those originally proposed; adding a reliability safety valve; and proposing rewards for early reductions. The rule establishes twoestablished numeric “emission standards” -for existing electric generating units – one for “fossil-steam” units (coal- and oil-fired units) and one for natural gas-fired units (combined cycle only). The emission standards are based on emission reduction opportunities that EPA deemed achievable using technical assumptions for three “building blocks:”blocks”: efficiency improvements at coal-fired EGUs, displacement of affected EGUs with renewable energy, and displacement of coal-fired generation with natural gas-fired generation. The final standards are 1,305 lb/MWH for fossil-steam units and 771 lb/MWH for gas units, both of which

A- 56



phase in over the period 2022-2030. To facilitate implementation, EPA converted the emission standards into state goals. Each state’s goal reflects the average state-wide emission rate that all of the state’s affected EGUs would meet in the aggregate if each one achieved the emission standards alone based upon a weighted average of each state’s unique mix of affected units.

Under the final rule, states are required to make initial plan submissions to EPA by September 6, 2016. EPA will grant up to a two-year extension provided that the initial plan meets certain specified criteria for progress and consultation. States receiving an extension must submit an update to EPA in 2017. All final state plans are due by 2018. State plans can be based on either an emission standards (rate or mass) approach or a state measures approach. Under an emission standards approach, federally enforceable emission limits are placed directly on affected units in the state. A state measures approach must meet equivalent rates statewide, but may include some elements, such as renewable energy or energy efficiency requirements, that are not federally enforceable. Plans using state measures may only be used with mass-based goals and must include “backstop” federally enforceable standards for EGUs that will become effective if the state measures fail to achieve the expected level of emission reductions.

The Clean Power Plan also proposes a Clean Energy Incentive Program designed to award credits for early development of certain renewable energy and energy efficiency programs that displace fossil generation in 2020 and 2021 prior to the compliance obligation taking effect in 2022. In addition, the Clean Power Plan contains a reliability safety valve for individual power plants. The reliability safety valve allows for a 90-day relief from CO2 emissions limits if generating units need to continue to operate and release excess emissions during emergencies that could compromise electric system reliability.

As discussed above, EPA issued a proposed Federal Plan in association with the Clean Power Plan. Under Section 111(d), EPA is authorized to issue a federal plan for states that do not submit an approvable state plan. EPA indicates that states may voluntarily adopt the Federal Plan in whole or in part as its state plan. EPA explains in its communications that the proposed Federal Plan will be released in advance of the deadline for submission of state plans to provide regulatory certainty to states that fail to submit approvable plan. The proposed Federal Plan will apply emission reduction obligations directly on affected EGUs. The plan presents two approaches: a rate-based emissions trading program and a mass-based emissions trading program. EPA indicates that it will choose only one of these approaches in the final Federal Plan. However, the proposed rule will offer both approaches for states to use as models in their own plans. EPA asked for comments on the proposed Federal Plan by January 21, 2016. PNM submitted comments in response. EPA intends to finalize both the rate-based and mass-based model trading rules in summer 2016.

Multiple states, utilities, and trade groups have filed petitions for review and motions to stay in the D.C. Circuit. On January 21, 2016,DC Circuit to challenge both the D.C. Circuit denied the motions to stay the EPA’s section 111(d) rule (the Clean Power Plan). It did, however, expedite briefing in the caseCarbon Pollution Standards for new sources and set it for oral argument on June 2, 2016. Under the court’s order, the parties were required to submit a proposed briefing format to the court by January 27, 2016, which ensures that briefing on all issues is completed by April 22, 2016. Petitioners had asked for bifurcated briefing that would allow the core legal issues to be litigated first and the programmatic issues related to the rule to be litigated later depending on the outcome of the litigation. The court denied that request.

On January 26, 2016, 29 states and state agencies filed a petition to the USSC asking the court to reverse the D.C. Circuit’s decision and stay the implementation of the Clean Power Plan. On February 9, 2016, the USSC granted the applicationsPlan for existing sources. Numerous parties also simultaneously filed motions to stay the Clean Power Plan pending judicial review ofduring the rule.litigation. The USSC issuedDC Circuit first refused to stay the rule, but 29 states and state agencies successfully petitioned the US Supreme Court for a one-page order that stated, “The EPA rule to have states cut power sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 32% by 2030 is stayed pending disposition of the applicants’ petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” The votestay, which was 5-4 among the USSC Justices. The decision meansgranted on February 9, 2016. As a result, the Clean Power Plan is not in effect and neither states nor sources are not obliged to comply with its requirements. IfWith the rule prevails throughUS Supreme Court stay in place, the legal challenges, states will be able to resume preparing state plans where they left off and should still have six more months to prepare initial plans and two-and- a-half years for final plans. The D.C.DC Circuit will hearheard oral arguments on the merits of the states’Clean Power Plan on September 27, 2016 in front of a 10-judge

A - 67



en banc panel. However, before the DC Circuit could issue an opinion, President Trump took office and his administration asked the court to hold the case on June 2, 2016. A final ruling from thatin abeyance while the rule is re-evaluated, which the court might not come for months. The stay will remain in effect pending USSC review if such review is sought.granted.

IfOn March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” Among its goals are to “promote clean and safe development of our Nation’s vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation.” The order rescinds several key pieces of the Obama Administration’s climate agenda, including the Climate Action Plan and the Final Guidance on Consideration of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews. It directs agencies to review and suspend, revise or rescind any regulations or agency actions that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources.

Most notably, the order directs EPA to immediately review and, if appropriate and consistent with law, suspend, revise, or rescind (1) the Carbon Pollution Standards for new, reconstructed or modified electric utilities, (2) the Clean Power Plan, prevails,(3) the Proposed Clean Power Plan Model Trading Rules, and (4) the Legal Memorandum supporting the Clean Power Plan. In response, the EPA signed a NOPR to repeal the Clean Power Plan on October 10, 2017. The notice proposes a legal interpretation concluding that the Clean Power Plan exceeds EPA’s statutory authority. EPA recently announced that it will continue to accept comments on that proposed interpretation until April 26, 2018. Any final rule will likely be subject to judicial review. EPA indicated it has not determined whether it will promulgate a new rule under section 111(d) or what form a new rule would take, but it did seek comment on that question in a separate advanced notice of proposed rulemaking published December 28, 2017.

PNM is unable to predict the impact to the Company of this Executive Order or the potential repeal of the Clean Power Plan. It is uncertain the direction EPA will take, if any, to replace the existing rule. If a future regulation limiting GHG from fossil-fueled EGUs is adopted, such regulations could impact PNM’s existing and future fossil-fueled EGUs. The existing Carbon Pollution Standards covering new sources willcould also impact PNM’s generation fleet. Impacts could involve investments in additional renewables and energy efficiency programs, efficiency improvements, and/or control technologies at the fossil-fueled EGUs. Under an emissions rate or mass based trading program, PNM may be required to purchase credits or allowances to comply with New Mexico’s final state plan. There are limited efficiency enhancement measuresfleet, although that may be available to a subset of the existing EGUs; however, such measures would provide only marginal GHG improvements. The only emission control technology for coal and gas-fired power plants available for GHG reduction is carbon capture and sequestration, which is not yet a commercially demonstrated technology. Additional GHG control technologies for existing EGUs may become viable in the future. The costs of purchasing carbon credits or allowances, making improvements, or installing new technology could impact the economic viability of some plants. PNM estimates that implementation of the RSIP for BART at SJGS that required the installation of SNCRs on Units 1 and 4rule remains under review by early 2016, which has been completed,EPA and the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 by the end of 2017

A- 57



as described in Note 16, should provide a significant step for New Mexico to meet its ultimate compliance with Section 111(d). PNM is unable to predict the impact of this rule on its fossil-fueled generation.

Federal Legislation

Prospects for enactment in Congress of legislation imposing a new or enhanced regulatory program to address climate change in Congress are highly unlikely in 2016.  Instead, EPA continues to be the primary venue for GHG regulation in the near future, especially for coal-fired EGUs. The USSC’s decision to stay the Clean Power Plan does put into question the viability of the rule, but EPA is encouraging states to continue to develop plans for compliance even during the stay. In addition, while there are legislative proposals to limit or block implementation of the Clean Power Plan once it is finalized, enactment of such legislation appears unlikely.

PNM has assessed, and continues to assess, the impacts of climate change legislation or regulation on its business.  This assessment is ongoing and future changes arising out of the legislative or regulatory process could impact the assessment significantly.  PNM’s assessment includes assumptions regarding the specific GHG limits, the timing of implementation of these limits, the possibility of a cap-and-trade or tax program including the associated costs and the availability of offsets, the development of technologies for renewable energy and to reduce emissions, and provisions for cost containment. Moreover, the assessment assumes various market reactions such as the price of coal and gas and regional plant economics.  These assumptions, at best, are preliminary and speculative. However, based upon these assumptions, the enactment of climate change legislation could, among other things, result in significant compliance costs, including large capital expenditures by PNM, and could jeopardize the economic viability of certain generating facilities. See Note 16.  In turn, these consequences could lead to increased costs to customers and affect results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition if the incurred costs are not fully recovered through regulated rates. Higher rates could also contribute to reduced usage of electricity.  PNM’s assessment process is ongoing, but too preliminary and speculative at this time for the meaningful prediction of financial impact.2018.  

State and Regional Activity

Pursuant to New Mexico law, each utility must submit an IRP to the NMPRC every three years to evaluate renewable energy, energy efficiency, load management, distributed generation, and conventional supply-side resources on a consistent and comparable basis.  The IRP is required to take into consideration risk and uncertainty of fuel supply, price volatility, and costs of anticipated environmental regulations when evaluating resource options to meet supply needs of the utility’s customers.  The NMPRC requires that New Mexico utilities factor a standardized cost of carbon emissions into their IRPs using prices ranging between $8 and $40 per metric ton of CO2 emitted and escalating these costs by 2.5% per year.  Under the NMPRC order, each utility must analyze these standardized prices as projected operating costs.  Reflecting the developing nature of this issue, the NMPRC order states that these prices may be changed in the future to account for additional information or changed circumstances.  Although these prices may not reflect the costs that ultimately will be incurred, PNM is required to use these prices for purposes of its IRP.  PNM’sAs discussed in Note 17, in its 2017 IRP, filed withPNM analyzed resource portfolio plans for scenarios that assumed SJGS will operate beyond the NMPRC on July 1, 2014 showed that consideration of carbon emissions costs impacted the projected in-service dates of someend of the identified resources.current coal supply agreement that runs through June 30, 2022 and for scenarios that assumed SJGS will cease operations by the end of 2022. The key findings of the 2017 IRP include that exiting SJGS in 2022 would provide long-term cost benefits to PNM’s customers and that PNM exiting its ownership interest in Four Corners in 2031 would also save customers money. The materials presented in the IRP process are available at www.pnm.com\irp.

In recent years,On August 30, 2017, Western Resource Advocates provided the NMPRC with a presentation on a proposed rulemaking for the adoption of a clean energy standard in New Mexico adopted regulations, which have since been repealed, that would directly limit GHG from larger sources, including EGUs, throughand a regional GHG cap and trade program and that would cap GHG from larger sources such as EGUs. Although these rules have been repealed, PNM cannot rule out future state legislative or regulatory initiatives to regulate GHG.

On August 2, 2012, thirty-three New Mexico organizations representing public health, business, environmental, consumers, Native American, and other interested parties filed a petition for rulemaking with the NMPRC. The petition asked the NMPRC to issue a NOPR regarding the implementation of an Optional Clean Energy Standard for electric utilities located in New Mexico. The proposed standard would have utilities that elect to participate reduce their CO2 emissions by 3% per year. Utilities that opt into the program would be assured recovery of their reasonable compliance costs. On October 4, 2012, the NMPRC held a workshop to discuss the proposed standard and whether it has authority to proceed with the NOPR. On August 28, 2013, the petitioners amended the August 2, 2012 petition and requestedsuggestion that the NMPRC issue a NOPR to implement a “Carbon Risk Reduction Rule” for electric utilitiesNOPR. The NMAG’s office and Prosperity Works joined in New Mexico.the petition. The proposed ruleclean energy standard, if adopted, would require affected utilities to demonstrate a 3%reduce carbon emissions by four percent per year CO2 emission reduction fromfor the next 20 years. The NMPRC has convened a three-year average baseline period between 2005series of workshops to develop a clean energy standard rule that could be proposed for a future rulemaking proceeding. The major topic areas discussed at the workshops are: jurisdictional and 2012. The proposed rule would use a credit system that provides creditsother legal issues; selection of the timeframe for electricity production based on how much less than one metric ton of CO2 per MWh the utility emits. Credits would be retired such that 3% per year reductions are achieved from theemissions baseline year until 2035 unless a participating utility elects to terminate the program at the end of 2023. Credits would not expirebe used, unspecified power, and could be banked. An advisory committee of interested stakeholders would monitor the program. In addition, utilities would be allowedelectric vehicle credits; and cost responsibilities, benefits, reasonable cost threshold, impact on rates, compliance issues, reliability impacts and unintended consequences. Workshops are scheduled to satisfy their obligations by funding NMPRC approved energy efficiency programs. There has been no further action on this matter at the NMPRC.continue in 2018.


A- 58A - 68



International Accords

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) is an international environmental treaty that was negotiated at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (informally known as the Earth Summit) and entered into force in March 1994. The objective of the treaty is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”  Parties to the UNFCCC, including the United States, have been meeting annually in Conferences of the Parties (“COP”) to assess progress in meeting the objectives of the UNFCCC. This assessment process led to the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol in the mid-1990s.  The Protocol, which was agreed to in 1997 and established legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their GHG emissions, was never ratified by the United States.  PNM monitors the proceedings of the UNFCCC, including the annual COP meetings, to determine potential impacts to its business activities.  At the COP meeting in 2011, participating nations, including the United States, agreed that in 2015, they would sign an international agreement involving commitment by all nations to begin reducing carbon emissions by 2020. 

On December 12, 2015, the Paris Agreement was negotiatedfinalized during the 2015 COP. The agreement, signedwhich was agreed to by more than 190 nations, requires that countries includes Intendedsubmit Nationally Determined Contributions (“INDCs”NDCs”), which are. NDCs reflect national targets and actions that arise out of national polices,policies and elements relating to oversight, guidance and coordination of actions to reduce emissions by all countries. In November 2014, then President Obama announced the United States’ commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissionsGHG, on an economy-wide basis, by 26%-28% from 2005 levels by the year 2025, which would put2025. The United States NDC is part of an overall effort by the former administration to have the United States on a path to achieve economy-wide reductions of around 80% by 2050.  As part of the process for developing the new global climate agreement, the United States formally submitted its INDC to the UNFCCC Secretariat on March 31, 2015, which reflected no change from the November 2014 announcement.  To date, INDCs have been submitted by 186 nations, including the United States and the European Union.  PNM will continue to monitor the United States participation in international accords.  The Obamaformer administration’s GHG emissions reduction target for the electric utility industry is a key element of its NDC and is based on EPA’s final GHG regulations for new, existing, and modified and reconstructed sources. WithThe United States was one of 189 nations that offered intended NDCs.  Thresholds for the staynumber of countries necessary to ratify or accede to the Paris Agreement and total global GHG percentage were achieved on October 5, 2016, and the Paris Agreement entered into force on November 4, 2016.  To date, 174 countries have ratified the Paris Agreement.  On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. In his public statement, he indicated that the United States would "begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a .... new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers." To date there have been no specific details as to how this will be accomplished.

PNM will continue to monitor the United States’ involvement in international accords, but the potential impact that such accords may have on the Company cannot be determined at this time.

Assessment of Legislative/Regulatory Impacts

The Company has assessed, and continues to assess, the impacts of climate change legislation and regulation on its business.  This assessment is ongoing and future changes arising out of the Clean Power Plan that covers existing sources, it is uncertain howlegislative or regulatory process could impact the Obama administration plans to meet its commitments underassessment significantly.  PNM’s assessment includes assumptions regarding specific GHG limits; the UNFCCC. PNM believes thattiming of implementation of these limits; the RSIP for BART at SJGS should providepossibility of a significant step towards compliance withmarket-based trading program, including the Clean Power Plan, should it prevail,associated costs and the availability of emission credits or other GHGallowances; the development of emission reduction requirements.and/or renewable energy technologies; and provisions for cost containment. Moreover, the assessment assumes various market reactions such as the price of coal and gas and regional plant economics.  These assumptions are, at best, preliminary and speculative. However, based upon these assumptions, the enactment of climate change legislation or regulation could, among other things, result in significant compliance costs, including large capital expenditures by PNM, and could jeopardize the economic viability of certain generating facilities. See Note 16.  In turn, these consequences could lead to increased costs to customers and affect results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition if the incurred costs are not fully recovered through regulated rates. Higher rates could also contribute to reduced usage of electricity.  PNM’s assessment process is too preliminary and speculative at this time for a meaningful prediction of financial impact.

Transmission Issues

At any given time, FERC has various notices of inquiry and rulemaking dockets related to transmission issues pending. Such actions may lead to changes in FERC administrative rules or ratemaking policy, but have no time frame in which action must be taken or a docket closed with no further action. Further, such notices and rulemaking dockets do not apply strictly to PNM, but will have industry-wide effects in that they will apply to all FERC-regulated entities. PNM monitors and often submits comments taking a position in such notices and rulemaking dockets or may join in larger group responses. PNM often cannot determine the full impact of a proposed rule and policy change until the final determination is made by FERC and PNM is unable to predict the outcome of these matters.

On November 24, 2009, FERC issued Order 729 approving two Modeling, Data, and Analysis Reliability Standards (“Reliability Standards”) submitted by NERC - MOD-001-1 (Available Transmission System Capability) and MOD-029-1 (Rated System Path Methodology). Both MOD-001-1 and MOD-029-1 require a consistent approach, provided for in the Reliability Standards, to measuring the total transmission capability (“TTC”) of a transmission path. The TTC level established using the two Reliability Standards could result in a reduction in the available transmission capacity currently used by PNM to deliver generation resources necessary for its jurisdictional load and for fulfilling its obligations to third-party users of the PNM transmission system.

A - 69




During the first quarter of 2011, at the request of PNM and other southwestern utilities, NERC advised all transmission owners and transmission service providers that the implementation of portions of the MOD-029 methodology for “Flow Limited” paths has been delayed until such time as a modification to the standard can be developed that will mitigate the technical concerns identified by the transmission owners and transmission service providers. PNM and other western utilities filed a Standards Action Request with NERC in the second quarter of 2012.

NERC initiated an informal development process to address directives in Order 729 to modify certain aspects of the MOD standards, including MOD-001 and MOD-029. The modifications to this standard would retire MOD-029 and require each transmission operator to determine and develop methodology for TTC values for MOD-001.

A final ballot for MOD-001-2 concluded on December 20, 2013 and received sufficient affirmative votes for approval. On February 10, 2014, NERC filed with FERC a petition for approval of MOD-001-2 and retirement of reliability standards MOD-001-1a, MOD-004-1, MOD-008-1, MOD-028-2, MOD-029-1a, and MOD-030-2. On June 19, 2014, FERC issued a NOPR to approve a new reliability standard. The MOD-001-2 standard will become effective on the first day of the calendar quarter that

A- 59



is 18 months after the date the standard is approved by FERC. MOD-001-2 will replace multiple existing reliability standards and will remove the risk of reduced TTC for PNM and other western utilities.

In July 2011, FERC issued Order 1000 adopting new requirements for transmission planning, cost allocation, and development for significant transmission planning related changes. In response, PNM and WestConnect (an organization of utility companies providing transmission of electricity in the western region that includes PNM) participants filed modified versions to the Attachment K (Transmission Planning Process) of their respective Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”). In March 2013, FERC issued its order regarding PNM’s and six other WestConnect FERC jurisdictional utilities’ compliance filings partially accepting many aspects of the filings. A major change directed by FERC is the requirement that the cost allocations be binding on identified beneficiaries and that a process be created that will result in a qualified developer being selected. On September 20, 2013, PNM and the other WestConnect FERC jurisdictional entities submitted their revised regional compliance filings to address and comply with the March 2013 FERC order.

In September 2014, FERC issued an additional order concerning the regional planning process and cost allocation in response to the September 2013 compliance filings. The FERC order required the WestConnect entities to make another compliance filing to hold a single year “abbreviated planning process for year 2015.” The order also required the entities to file the WestConnect “Planning Participation Agreement.” Of significant concern to FERC jurisdictional entities in this order was FERC’s ruling that the non-jurisdictional entities would not be required to participate in cost allocation on regional projects, which the WestConnect FERC jurisdictional entities believe does not comport with FERC’s Order 1000 position on the “cost causation principle” and could create a “free rider-ship” issue for certain participants in the planning process. Due to the cost allocation issue, FERC-regulated entities jointly filed a request for re-hearing or clarification of the FERC order in October 2014. The FERC-regulated entities filed compliance filings regarding the September 2014 FERC order in November 2014, making several adjustments to the language in their respective Attachment Ks, as well as a separate unsigned version of the proposed final version of the Planning Participation Agreement. In May 2015, FERC conditionally accepted the November 2014 filings, but denied the re-hearing request filed in October 2014. The WestConnect FERC jurisdictional entities made compliance filings regarding the May 2015 FERC order on June 16, 2015, making several adjustments to the language in their respective Attachment K. In October 2015, FERC accepted the compliance filings, subject to making two further procedural modifications. On November 19, 2015, the FERC jurisdictional entities filed revisions to Attachment K of their respective OATT. On January 21, 2016, FERC accepted PNM’s November 2015 filing with an effective date of January 1, 2016.

In July 2013, the WestConnect participants submitted their cost allocation and inter-regional coordination plan between WestConnect and three other planning regions. In December 2014, FERC issued an order conditionally accepting the WestConnect compliance filing including the California Independent System Operator Corporation (“CAISO”), Northern Tier Transmission Group Applicants, and Columbia Grid (collectively the “Western Filing Parties”). The order required the Western Filing Parties to use the same method for determining the regional benefits of a proposed interregional transmission facility through revisions to the common tariff language. Without requiring modification to the common tariff language for all four Western planning regions, CAISO would tender revised tariff sheets to address the Western Filing Parties compliance condition. The WestConnect entities and the other Western Filing Parties submitted a common compliance filing on February 17, 2015, stating that CAISO had agreed to change its OATT language and, therefore, the other entities would not have to change the common OATT language.

As of January 2015, all of the WestConnect jurisdictional entities have executed the Planning Participation Agreement and some of the non-jurisdictional entities have also signed. A 2015 study plan has been completed and committee activities are currently focused on establishing the data for the technical models, production cost models and base system to be used as the reference for the 2015 study work. WestConnect has hired a consultant to complete the single year planning study for 2015 as required in the September 2014 FERC order.

Financial Reform Legislation

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Reform Act”), enacted in July 2010, includes provisions that will require certain over-the-counter derivatives, or swaps, to be centrally cleared and executed through an exchange or other approved trading facility. It also includes provisions related to swap transaction reporting and record keeping and may impose margin requirements on swaps that are not centrally cleared. The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) has published final rules defining several key terms related to the act and has set compliance dates for various types of market participants. The Dodd-Frank Reform Act provides exemptions from certain requirements, including an exception to the mandatory clearing and swap facility execution requirements for commercial end-users that use swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk.  PNM has elected the end-user exception to the mandatory clearing requirement. PNM expects to be in compliance with the Dodd-Frank Reform Act and related rules within the time frames required by the CFTC. However, as a result of implementing and complying with the Dodd-Frank Reform Act and related rules, PNM’s swap activities could be subject

A- 60



to increased costs, including from higher margin requirements. The Trump Administration has indicated that the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Reform Act will be reviewed and certain regulations may be rolled back, but no formal action has been taken yet. At this time, PNM cannot predict the ultimate impact the Dodd-Frank Reform Act may have on PNM’s financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, or liquidity.

Other Matters
See Notes 16 and 17 for a discussion of commitments and contingencies and rate and regulatory matters. See Note 1 for a discussion of accounting pronouncements that have been issued, but are not yet effective and have not been adopted by the Company.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES
The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires management to apply accounting policies and to make estimates and judgments that best provide the framework to report the results of operations and financial position for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP. As a result, there exists the likelihood that materially different amounts would be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions. Management has identified the following accounting policies that it deems critical to the portrayal of the financial condition and results of operations and that involve significant subjectivity. The following discussion provides information on the processes utilized by management in making judgments and assumptions as they apply to its critical accounting policies.
Unbilled Revenues
The Company records unbilled revenues representing management’s assessment of the estimated amount of revenue earned from customers for services rendered between the meter-reading dates in a particular month and the end of that month. Unbilled revenues are estimated based on daily generation volumes, estimated customer usage by class, weather factors, line losses, and applicable customer rates reflecting historical trends and experience. The estimate requires the use of various judgments and assumptions; significant changes to these judgments and assumptions could have a material impact to the Company’s results of operations.

A - 70



Regulatory Accounting
The Company is subject to the provisions of GAAP for rate-regulated enterprises and records assets and liabilities resulting from the effects of the ratemaking process, which would not be recorded under GAAP for non-regulated entities. Additional information concerning regulatory assets and liabilities is contained in Note 4.
The Company continually evaluates the probability that regulatory assets and liabilities will impact future rates and makes various assumptions in those analyses. The expectations of future rate impacts are generally based on orders issued by regulatory commissions or historical experience, as well as discussions with applicable regulatory authorities. If future recovery or refund ceases to be probable, the Company would be required to write-off the portion that is not recoverable or refundable in current period earnings.
The Company has made adjustments to regulatory assets and liabilities that affected its results of operations in the past due to changes in various factors and conditions impacting future cost recovery. Based on its current evaluation, the Company believes that future recovery of its regulatory assets is probable.

Impairments
Tangible long-lived assets are evaluated for impairment when events and circumstances indicate that the assets might be impaired in accordance with GAAP. These potential impairment indicators include management’s assessment of fluctuating market conditions as a result of planned and scheduled customer purchase commitments; future market penetration; changing environmental requirements; fluctuating market prices resulting from factors including changing fuel costs and other economic conditions; long-term weather patterns; and other market trends. The amount of impairment recognized, if any, is the difference between the fair value of the asset and the carrying value of the asset and would reduce both the asset and current period earnings. Variations in the assessment of potential impairment or in the assumptions used to calculate an impairment could result in different outcomes, which could lead to significant effects on the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Goodwill is evaluated for impairment at least annually, or more frequently if events and circumstances indicate that the goodwill might be impaired. GAAP allows impairment testing to be performed based on either a qualitative analysis or quantitative analysis. Note 1918 contains information on the impairment testing performed by the Company on goodwill. For 2015,2017, the Company utilized a qualitative analysis for both the PNM and TNMP reporting unit and a quantitative analysis for the PNM reporting unit.units. No impairments were indicated in the Company’s annual goodwill testing, which was performed as of April 1, 2015.2017. Since the annual evaluation, there have been no indications that the fair values of the reporting units with recorded goodwill have decreased below the carrying valu

A- 61



es.values. The annual testing was based on certain critical estimates and assumptions. Changes in the estimates or the use of different assumptions could affect the determination of fair value and the conclusion of impairment for each reporting unit.
Application of the qualitative goodwill impairment test requires evaluating various events and circumstances to determine whether it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. As a part of the Company’s goodwill qualitative testing process for a reporting unit, various factors that are specific to the reporting unit as well as industry and macroeconomic factors are evaluated in order to determine whether these factors are reasonably likely to have a material impact on the fair value of the reporting unit. Examples of the factors that were considered in the qualitative testing of the goodwill include the results of the most recent quantitative impairment test, current and long-term forecasted financial results, regulatory environment, credit rating, changes in the interest rate environment, and operating strategy for the reporting unit. Based on the qualitative analysis performed in 20152017 for both the PNM and TNMP reporting unit,units, the Company concluded that there were no changes that were reasonably likely to cause the fair value of the reporting unitunits to be less than thetheir carrying value and determined that there was no impairment of goodwill. Although the Company believes all relevant factors were considered in the qualitative impairment analysis to reach the conclusion that goodwill is not impaired, significant changes in any one of the assumptions could produce a significantly different result potentially leading to the recording of an impairment that could have significant impacts on the results of operations and financial position of the Company.
Application of the quantitative impairment test requires judgment, including assignment of assets and liabilities to reporting units and the determination of the fair value of a reporting unit. A discounted cash flow methodology is primarily used by the Company to estimate the fair value of a reporting unit. This analysis requires significant judgments, including estimation of future cash flows, which is dependent on internal forecasts, estimation of long-term growth rates for the business, and determination of appropriate WACC for each reporting unit.
In determining the fair value of a reporting unit under the quantitative approach, the WACC is a significant factor. The Company considers many factors in selecting a WACC, including the market view of risk for each individual reporting unit, the appropriate capital structure based on that used in the ratemaking process, and the borrowing rate appropriate for a reporting unit. The Company considers available market-based information and may consult with third parties to help determine the WACC. The selection of a WACC is subjective and modifications to this rate could significantly increase or decrease the fair value of a reporting unit.
The other primary factor impacting the determination of the fair value of a reporting unit is the estimation of future cash flows. The Company considers budgets, long-term forecasts, historical trends, and expected growth rates in order to estimate future cash flows. Any forecast contains a degree of uncertainty and modifications to these cash flows could significantly increase or decrease the fair value of a reporting unit. For the PNM and TNMP reporting units, which are subject to rate-regulation, a fair recovery of and return on costs prudently incurred to serve customers is assumed. Should the regulators not allow recovery of certain costs or not allow these reporting units to earn a fair rate of return on invested capital, the fair value of the reporting units could decrease.
PNM believes that the WACC and cash flow projections utilized in the 2015 quantitative testing appropriately reflected the fair value of the PNM reporting unit. Since any cash flow projection contains uncertainty, the WACC used by PNM was adjusted to reflect that uncertainty. The Company does not believe that there are indications of goodwill impairment in any of its reporting units, but this analysis is highly subjective. As of the impairment testing for April 1, 2015, the fair value of the PNM reporting unit, which had goodwill of $51.6 million, exceeded its carrying value by approximately 25%. An increase of 0.5% in the expected return on equity capital utilized in calculating the WACC used to discount the forecasted cash flows, would have reduced the excess of PNM’s fair value over carrying value to approximately 18% at April 1, 2015. The April 1, 2012 quantitative evaluation of fair value of the TNMP reporting unit, which had goodwill of $226.7 million, exceeded its carrying value by approximately 26%. Due to the subjectivity and sensitivities of the assumptions and estimates underlying the impairment analysis, there can be no assurance that future analyses, which will be based on the appropriate assumptions and estimates at that time, will not result in impairments.
Decommissioning and Reclamation Costs
PNM owns and leases nuclear and fossil-fuel generation facilities. In accordance with GAAP, PNM is only required to recognize and measure decommissioning liabilities for tangible long-lived assets for which a legal obligation exists. Accounting for decommissioning costs for nuclear and fossil-fuel generation involves significant estimates related to costs to be incurred many years in the future after plant closure. Decommissioning costs are based on site-specific estimates, which are updated periodically and involve numerous judgments and assumptions, including estimates of future decommissioning costs at current price levels, inflation rates, and discount rates. Changes in these estimates could significantly impact PNMR’s and PNM’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. Nuclear decommissioning costs are based on estimates of the costs for removing all radioactive and other structures at PVNGS. AROs, including nuclear decommissioning costs, are discussed in Note 15. Nuclear de

A- 62



commissioningdecommissioning costs represent approximately 85%80% of PNM’s ARO liability. A 10% increase in the estimates of future decommissioningde

A - 71



commissioning costs at current price levels would have increased the ARO liability by $13.1$10.7 million at December 31, 2015.2017. PVNGS Units 1 and 2 are included in PNM’s retail rates while PVNGS Unit 3 is currentlywas excluded through 2017, but will beis included beginning in 2018. PNM collectsrecognizes an expense and a provisioncorresponding liability for ultimate decommissioning of PVNGS Units 1 and 2 and its fossil-fuel generation facilities in its rates and recognizes a corresponding expense and liabilityPVNGS. See Note 17 for these amounts. PNM believes that it will continue to be able to collect in rates for its legal asset retirement obligations forinformation concerning the treatment of nuclear generation activities includeddecommissioning in the ratemaking process.NMPRC’s order in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and PNM’s appeal of that order.
In connection with both the SJGS coal agreement and the Four Corners fuel agreement, the owners are required to reimburse the mining companies for the cost of contemporaneous reclamation, as well as the costs for final reclamation of the coal mines.  The reclamation costs are based on periodic site-specific studies that estimate the costs to be incurred in the future and are dependent upon numerous assumptions, including estimates of future reclamation costs at current price levels, inflation rates, and discount rates. A 10% increase in the estimates of future reclamation costs at current price levels would have increased the mine reclamation liability by $5.0$5.3 million at December 31, 2015.2017. PNM considers the contemporaneous reclamation costs part of the cost of its delivered coal costs.  The NMPRC has capped the amount that can be collected from ratepayers for final reclamation of the surface mines. If future estimates increase the liability for surface mine reclamation, the excess would be expensed at that time. See Note 16 for discussion of the final reclamation costs.

Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits
The Company maintains qualified defined benefit pension plans, postretirement benefit plans providing medical and dental benefits, and executive retirement programs. The net periodic benefit cost or income and the calculation of the projected benefit obligations are recognized in the Company’s financial statements and depend on expected investment performance, the level of contributions made to the plans, and employee demographics. These calculations require the use of a number of actuarial assumptions and estimates. The most critical of the actuarial assumptions are the expected long-term rate of return, the discount rate, and projected health care cost trend rates. The Company reviews and evaluates its actuarial assumptions annually and adjusts them as necessary. Changes in the pension and OPEB assets and liabilities associated with these factors are not immediately recognized as net periodic benefit cost or income in results of operations, but are recognized in future years, generally, over the remaining life of the plan. However, these factors could have a significant impact on the financial position of the Company. Note 12 contains additional information about pension and OPEB obligations, including assumptions utilized in the calculations and impacts of changes in certain of those assumptions.
Accounting for Contingencies
The financial results of the Company may be affected by judgments and estimates related to loss contingencies. Contingencies related to litigation and claims, as well as environmental and regulatory matters, also require the use of significant judgment and estimation. The Company attempts to take into account all known factors regarding the future outcome of contingent events and records an accrual for any contingent loss events that are both probable of occurring and can be reasonably estimated based upon current available information. However the actual outcomes can vary from any amounts accrued which could have a material effect on the results of operations and financial position of the Company. See Note 16 and Note 17.
Income Taxes

The Company’s income tax expense and related balance sheet amounts involve significant judgment and use of estimates. Amounts of deferred income tax assets and liabilities, current and noncurrent accruals, and determination of uncertain tax positions involve judgment and estimates related to timing and probability of the recognition of income and deductions by taxing authorities. In addition, some temporary differences are accorded flow-through treatment by the Company’s regulators and impact the Company’s effective tax rate. In assessing the likelihood of the realization of deferred tax assets, management considers the estimated amount and character of future taxable income. Significant changes in these judgments and estimates could have a material impact on the results of operations and financial position of the Company. Actual income taxes could vary from estimated amounts due to the future impacts of various items, including changes in income tax laws, the Company’s forecasted financial condition and results of operations in future periods, and the final review from taxing authorities. See Note 11.
Market Risk
See Part II, Item 7A. Quantitative11 for additional information, including a discussion of the impacts of tax reform under the Tax Cuts and Qualitative Disclosure About Market Risk for discussion regarding the Company’s accounting policies and sensitivity analysis for the Company’s financial instruments and derivative energy and other derivative contracts.Jobs Act enacted on December 22, 2017.

A- 63



MD&A FOR PNM
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
PNM operates in only one reportable segment, as presented above in Results of Operations for PNMR.
MD&A FOR TNMP
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
TNMP operates in only one reportable segment, as presented above in Results of Operations for PNMR.

A - 72



ITEM 7A.QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
The Company manages the scope of its various forms of market risk through a comprehensive set of policies and procedures with oversight by senior level management through the RMC. The Board’s Finance Committee sets the risk limit parameters. The RMC has oversight over the risk control organization. The RMC is assigned responsibility for establishing and enforcing the policies, procedures, and limits and evaluating the risks inherent in proposed transactions on an enterprise-wide basis. The RMC’s responsibilities include:
Establishing policies regarding risk exposure levels and activities in each of the business segments
Approving the types of derivatives entered into for hedging
Reviewing and approving hedging risk activities
Establishing policies regarding counterparty exposure and limits
Authorizing and delegating transaction limits
Reviewing and approving controls and procedures for derivative activities
Reviewing and approving models and assumptions used to calculate mark-to-market and market risk exposure
Proposing risk limits to the Board’s Finance Committee for its approval
Quarterly reportingReporting to the Board’s Audit and Finance Committees on these activities
To the extent an open position exists, fluctuating commodity prices, interest rates, equity prices, and economic conditions can impact financial results and financial position, either favorably or unfavorably. As a result, the Company cannot predict with certainty the impact that its risk management decisions may have on its businesses, operating results, or financial position.
Commodity Risk
Information concerning accounting for derivatives and the risks associated with commodity contracts is set forth in Note 8, including a summary of the fair values of mark-to-market energy related derivative contracts included in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. During the years ended December 31, 20152017 and 2014, PNMR and PNM2016, the Company had no commodity derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedging instruments.


A- 64



Commodity contracts, other than those that do not meet the definition of a derivative under GAAP, and those derivatives designated as normal purchases and normal sales, are recorded at fair value on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The following table details the changes in the net asset or liability balance sheet position for mark-to-market energy transactions.
 
Economic HedgesYear Ended December 31,
PNMR and PNM2017 2016
(In thousands)
Economic Hedges(In thousands)
Sources of fair value gain (loss):    
Net fair value at December 31, 2013$3,273
Net fair value at beginning of period$2,885
 $4,576
Amount realized on contracts delivered during period1,420
(2,640) (316)
Changes in fair value5,084
(235) (1,261)
Net mark-to-market change recorded in earnings6,504
(2,875) (1,577)
Net change recorded as regulatory liability(231)(104) (114)
Net fair value at December 31, 20149,546
Amount realized on contracts delivered during period(12,050)
Changes in fair value6,863
Net mark-to-market change recorded in earnings(5,187)
Net change recorded as regulatory liability217
Net fair value at December 31, 2015$4,576
Net fair value at end of period$(94) $2,885

The following table provides the maturityAll of the net assets (liabilities), giving an indicationfair values as of when theseDecember 31, 2017 were determined based on prices provided by external sources other than actively quoted market prices. All of the mark-to-market amounts will settle in 2018.

PNM is exposed to changes in the market prices of electricity and generate (use) cash.
Fair Valuenatural gas for the positions in its wholesale portfolio not covered by the FPPAC. The Company manages risks associated with these market fluctuations by utilizing various commodity instruments that may qualify as derivatives, including futures, forwards, options, and swaps. PNM uses such instruments to hedge its exposure to changes in the market prices of Mark-to-Market Instruments at December 31, 2015
 Settlement Dates
 2016 2017
PNMR and PNM(In thousands)
Economic hedges   
Prices actively quoted$
 $
Prices provided by other external sources1,954
 2,622
Prices based on models and other valuations
 
Total$1,954
 $2,622
electricity and natural gas. PNM also uses such instruments under an NMPRC approved hedging plan to manage fuel and purchased power costs related to customers covered by its FPPAC.

PNM measures the market risk of its long-term contracts and wholesale activities not covered by the FPPAC using a Monte Carlo VaR simulation model to report the possible loss in value from price movements. VaR is not a measure of the potential accounting mark-to-market loss. The quantitative risk information is limited by the parameters established in creating the model. The Monte Carlo VaR methodology employs the following critical parameters: historical volatility estimates, market values of all contractual commitments, a three-day holding period, seasonally adjusted and cross-commodity correlation estimates, and a 95% confidence

A - 73



level. The instruments being evaluated may trigger a potential loss in excess of calculated amounts if changes in commodity prices exceed the confidence level of the model used.

PNM measures VaR for the positions in its wholesale portfolio (not covered by the FPPAC).  For the year ended December 31, 2015,2017, the high, low, and average VaR amounts were $2.6$0.7 million, $0.5$0.1 million, and $1.4$0.3 million. For the year ended December 31, 2014,2016, the high, low and average VaR amounts were $2.1$1.3 million, $0.6$0.3 million, and $0.9$0.6 million. At December 31, 20152017 and December 31, 2014,2016, the VaR amounts for the PNM wholesale portfolio were $1.2$0.3 million and $1.3$0.6 million.

The VaR represents an estimate of the potential gains or losses that could be recognized on the Company’s portfolios, subject to market risk, given current volatility in the market, and is not necessarily indicative of actual results that may occur, since actual future gains and losses will differ from those estimated. Actual gains and losses may differ due to actual fluctuations in

A- 65



market prices, operating exposures, and the timing thereof, as well as changes to the underlying portfolios during the year. VaR limits were not exceeded during 20152017 or 2014.2016.

PNM has significantly reduced its market risk exposure through the inclusion of PVNGS Unit 3 in New Mexico retail rates and the hedging, through June 2022, of 36 MW of the 65 MW of SJGS Unit 4, which is treated as merchant plant. As a result, PNM is reviewing its risk level and associated processes, including the use of VaR as a risk metric.
Credit Risk
The Company is exposed to credit risk from its retail and wholesale customers, as well as the counterparties to derivative instruments. The Company conducts counterparty risk analysis across business segments and uses a credit management process to assess the financial conditions of counterparties. The following table provides information related to credit exposure by the credit worthiness (credit rating) and concentration of credit risk for wholesale counterparties, to derivative transactions. All credit exposures at December 31, 2015all of which will mature in less than two years.

Schedule of Credit Risk Exposure
December 31, 20152017
Rating (1)
 
Credit
Risk
Exposure(2)
 
Number of
Counter-parties >10%
 
Net Exposure of
Counter-parties >10%
 
Credit
Risk
Exposure(2)
 
Number of
Counter-parties >10%
 
Net Exposure of
Counter-parties >10%
 (Dollars in thousands) (Dollars in thousands)
PNMR and PNM      
External ratings:            
Investment grade $1,211
 
 $
 $2,534
 1
 $650
Non-investment grade 1
 
 
 1
 
 
Split ratings 210
 
 
Internal ratings:            
Investment grade 6,601
 1
 5,722
 84
 
 
Non-investment grade 8
 
 
 3,027
 1
 2,957
Total $7,821
   $5,722
 $5,856
   $3,607


(1) 
The rating “Investment Grade” is for counterparties, or a guarantor, with a minimum S&P rating of BBB- or Moody’s rating of Baa3. The category “Internal Ratings – Investment Grade” includes those counterparties that are internally rated as investment grade in accordance with the guidelines established in the Company’s credit policy.

(2) 
The Credit Risk Exposure is the gross credit exposure, including long-term contracts (other than firm-requirements wholesale customers)customers and the Tri-State hazard sharing agreement), forward sales, and short-term sales. The gross exposure captures the amounts from receivables/payables for realized transactions, delivered and unbilled revenues, and mark-to-market gains/losses. Gross exposures can be offset according to legally enforceable netting arrangements, but are not reduced by posted credit collateral. At December 31, 2015,2017, PNMR and PNM held $0.1$0.9 million of cash collateral to offset theirits credit exposure.

Net credit risk for PNMR’s and PNM’sthe Company’s largest counterparty as of December 31, 20152017 was $7.9 million, which is due from a firm-requirements wholesale customer.$3.0 million.

The PVNGS lessor notes are notAs discussed in Note 16, PNMR’s subsidiary, NM Capital, entered into the Westmoreland Loan to facilitate the acquisition of SJCC by WSJ, a subsidiary of Westmoreland, and PNMR has arranged for letters of credit to be issued to support the coal

A - 74



mining operations of SJCC. PNMR is exposed to credit risk sinceunder these arrangements in the notesevent of default by WSJ. As of February 20, 2018, remaining required principal payments under the Westmoreland Loan are repaid$2.7 million in 2018 (after reflecting the $5.6 million paid on February 1, 2018), $8.6 million in 2019, $23.3 million in 2020, and $16.4 million in 2021. In addition, the Westmoreland Loan requires that all cash flows of WSJ, in excess of normal operating expenses, capital additions, and operating reserves, be utilized for principal and interest payments under the loan until it is fully repaid. The Westmoreland Loan is secured by the assets of and the equity interests in SJCC. In the event of a default by WSJ, NM Capital would have the ability to take over the mining operations, the value of which PNMR believes approximates the amount outstanding under the Westmoreland Loan.  Furthermore, PNMR considers the possibility of loss under the letters of credit to be remote as PNM makes payments on the underlying leases. discussed in Note 9. Accordingly, PNMR does not consider its credit risk under these arrangements to be material.

Other investments have no significant counterparty credit risk.
Interest Rate Risk
The majority of the Company’s long-term debt is fixed-rate debt and does not expose earnings to a major risk of loss due to adverse changes in market interest rates. However, the fair value of long-term debt instruments for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP would increase by 1.9%1.6%, 1.7%1.3%, and 3.7%3.5%, if interest rates were to decline by 50 basis points from their levels at December 31, 20152017. In general, an increase in fair value would impact earnings and cash flows to the extent not recoverable in rates if all or a portion of debt instruments were acquired in the open market prior to their maturity. At February 19, 201620, 2018, PNMR, PNM, and TNMP had $66.1$182.4 million, $46.2$57.4 million, and $15.0$23.9 million of short-term debt outstanding under their revolving credit facilities, which allow for a maximum aggregate borrowing capacity of $300.0 million for PNMR, $400.0 million for PNM, and $75.0 million for TNMP. PNM also had borrowings of $50.0$20.0 million under the $50.0$40.0 million PNM 2017 New Mexico Credit Facility at February 19, 2016.20, 2018. The revolving credit facilities, the PNM 2017 New Mexico Credit Facility, the $125.0 million PNM Multi-draw Term Loan, the $100.0 million PNMR Term Loan Agreement, the $150.0 million PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement, the $150.0$100.0 million PNMR 2016 One-Year Term Loan Agreement (as extended), the $100.0 million PNMR 2016 Two-Year Term Loan Agreement, the $200.0 million PNM 2017 Term Loan Agreement, and the $125.0 million BTMU Term Loan Agreement bear interest at variable rates. On February 19, 2016,20, 2018, interest rates on borrowings averaged 1.68%2.83% for the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility, 1.33%2.48% for the PNMR

A- 66



2015 Term Loan Agreement, 1.28% for the PNMR Term Loan Agreement, 3.37%4.32% for the BTMU Term Loan Agreement, 1.01%2.39% for the PNM Multi-drawPNMR 2016 One-Year Term Loan 1.56%Agreement (as extended), 2.35% for the PNMR 2016 Two-Year Term Loan Agreement, 2.71% for the PNM Revolving Credit Facility, 1.56%2.70% for the PNM 2017 New Mexico Credit Facility, 2.30% for the PNM 2017 Term Loan Agreement, and 1.43%2.33% for the TNMP Revolving Credit Facility. The Company is exposed to interest rate risk to the extent of future increases in variable interest rates. However, as discussed in Note 6, PNMR has entered into hedging arrangements to effectively establish fixed interest rates on the PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement and $150.0 million of variable rate debt.
The investments held by PNM in trusts for decommissioning, reclamation, pension benefits, and other post-employment benefits had an estimated fair value of $891.5$967.0 million at December 31, 20152017, of which 54.4%55.8% were fixed-rate debt securities that subject PNM to risk of loss of fair value with movementsincreases in market interest rates. If interest rates were to increase by 50 basis points from their levels at December 31, 20152017, the decrease in the fair value of the fixed-rate securities would be 5.6%6.8%, or $27.2$36.7 million. Due to the funded status of the nuclear decommissioning trust and overall market performance, PNM began to re-balance the decommissioning investment portfolio in late 2017 to increase the percentage of the investments in fixed income (debt) securities to approximately 85%. The portfolio re-balancing was completed in early 2018 and is expected to increase the exposure related to interest rate risk and reduce the equity market risk referenced below. The securities held by TNMP in trusts for pension and other post-employment benefits had an estimated fair value of $71.4$73.7 million at December 31, 20152017, of which 57.7%59.2% were fixed-rate debt securities that subject TNMP to risk of loss of fair value with movements in market interest rates. If interest rates were to increase by 50 basis points from their levels at December 31, 20152017, the decrease in the fair value of the fixed-rate securities would be 6.3%8.2%, or $2.6$3.6 million.
PNM and TNMP do not directly recover or return through rates any losses or gains on the securities, including equity and alternative investments discussed below, in the trusts for decommissioning, reclamation, pension benefits, and other post-employment benefits. However, the overall performance of these trusts does enter into the periodic determinations of expense and funding levels, which are factored into the rate making process to the extent applicable to regulated operations. However, as described in Note 17, the NMPRC has ruled that PNM would not be able to include future contributions made by PNM for decommissioning of PVNGS, to the extent applicable to certain capacity previously leased by PNM, in rates charged to retail customers. PNM has appealed the NMPRC’s ruling to the NM Supreme Court. PNM and TNMP are at risk for shortfalls in funding of obligations due to investment losses, including those from the equity market and alternatives investment risks discussed below to the extent not ultimately recovered through rates charged to customers.

A - 75



Equity Market Risk
The investments held by PNM in trusts for decommissioning and reclamation and trusts established for PNM’s and TNMP’s pension and post-employment benefits plans include certain equity securities at December 31, 20152017. These equity securities expose PNM and TNMP to losses in fair value should the market values of the underlying securities decline. Equity securities comprised 34.0%30.3% and 26.0%25.5% of the securities held by the various PNM and TNMP trusts as of December 31, 20152017. A hypothetical 10% decrease in equity prices would reduce the fair values of these funds by $30.3$29.3 million for PNM and $1.9 million for TNMP.
Alternatives Investment Risk
The Company had 14.3%13.6% of its pension assets invested in the alternatives asset class as of December 31, 20152017. The Company’s target for this class is 14%. This includes real estate, private equity, and hedge funds. These investments are limited partner structures that are multi-manager multi-strategy funds. This investment approach gives broad diversification and minimizes risk compared to a direct investment in any one component of the funds. The general partner oversees the selection and monitoring of the underlying managers. The Company’s Corporate Investment Committee, assisted by its investment consultant, monitors the performance of the funds and general partner’s investment process. There is risk associated with these funds due to the nature of the strategies and techniques and the use of investments that do not have readily determinable fair value. A hypothetical 10% decrease in equity prices would reduce the fair values of these funds by $8.8$8.5 million.

A- 67A - 76



ITEM 8.FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
INDEX
 


B-B - 1



MANAGEMENT’S ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
Management of PNM Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries (“PNMR”) is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Management assessed the effectiveness of PNMR’s internal control over financial reporting based on the Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on the assessment performed, management concludes that PNMR’s internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 20152017.
The effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017 has been audited by KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestationas stated in their audit report on PNMR’s internal control over financial reporting which is included herein.

/s/ Patricia K. Collawn
Patricia K. Collawn,
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer
 
/s/ Charles N. Eldred
Charles N. Eldred
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer


B-B - 2



MANAGEMENT’S ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
 
Management of Public Service Company of New Mexico and subsidiaries (“PNM”) is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Management assessed the effectiveness of PNM’s internal control over financial reporting based on the Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on the assessment performed, management concludes that PNM’s internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 20152017.

/s/ Patricia K. Collawn
Patricia K. Collawn,
President and Chief Executive Officer
 
/s/ Charles N. Eldred
Charles N. Eldred
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer


B-B - 3



MANAGEMENT’S ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
 
Management of Texas-New Mexico Power Company and subsidiaries (“TNMP”) is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Management assessed the effectiveness of TNMP’s internal control over financial reporting based on the Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on the assessment performed, management concludes that TNMP’s internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 20152017.

/s/ Patricia K. Collawn
Patricia K. Collawn,
Chief Executive Officer
 
/s/ Charles N. Eldred
Charles N. Eldred
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

B-B - 4




REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Stockholders and Board of Directors and Stockholders
PNM Resources, Inc.:

Opinions on the Consolidated Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of PNM Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries’subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the related consolidated statements of earnings, consolidated statements of comprehensive income, consolidated statements of changes in equity, and consolidated statements of cash flows for each of the years in the threeyear period ended December 31, 2017, the related notes and financial statement Schedule I – Condensed Financial Information of Parent Company and Schedule II – Valuation and Qualifying Accounts(collectively, the consolidated financial statements). We also have audited the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015,2017, based on criteria established inInternal Control - Integrated Framework(2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the threeyear period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). PNM Resources, Inc. and subsidiariesCommission.
Basis for Opinion
The Company’s management is responsible for these consolidated financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting.Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s consolidated financial statements and an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our auditaudits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the auditaudits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud, and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects.
Our audits of the consolidated financial statements included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our auditaudits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit providesaudits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.opinions.
Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable

B - 5



assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

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.
In our opinion, PNM Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework(2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of PNM Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the related consolidated statements of earnings, consolidated statements of comprehensive income, consolidated statements of changes in equity, and consolidated statements of cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2015, and our report dated February 26, 2016 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.

/s/ KPMG LLP

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2013.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
February 26, 2016March 1, 2018


B- 5B - 6




REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Stockholders and Board of Directors and Stockholders
PNM Resources, Inc.:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of PNM Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, consolidated statements of comprehensive income, consolidated statements of changes in equity, and consolidated statements of cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2015. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated 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. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of PNM Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2015, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), PNM Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework(2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report dated February 26, 2016 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Albuquerque, New Mexico
February 26, 2016


B- 6




REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Public Service Company of New Mexico:

Opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Public Service Company of New Mexico and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 20152017 and 2014, and2016, the related consolidated statements of earnings (loss), consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss), consolidated statements of changes in equity, and consolidated statements of cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearthree‑year period ended December 31, 2015. 2017, the related notes andSchedule II – Valuation and Qualifying Accounts(collectively, the consolidated financial statements). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the three‑year period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
Basis for Opinion
These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includesmisstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence supportingregarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. An auditOur audits also includes assessingincluded evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statement presentation.statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Public Service Company of New Mexico and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2015, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

/s/ KPMG LLP

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2013.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
February 26, 2016March 1, 2018




B-B - 7




REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Stockholder and Board of Directors and Stockholder
Texas-NewTexasNew Mexico Power Company:

Opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Texas-NewTexasNew Mexico Power Company and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 20152017 and 2014, and2016, the related consolidated statements of earnings, consolidated statements of comprehensive income, consolidated statements of changes in common stockholder’s equity, and consolidated statements of cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearthree‑year period ended December 31, 2015. 2017, the related notes andSchedule II – Valuation and Qualifying Accounts(collectively, the consolidated financial statements). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the three‑year period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
Basis for Opinion
These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includesmisstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence supportingregarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. An auditOur audits also includes assessingincluded evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statement presentation.statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Texas-New Mexico Power Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2015, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

/s/ KPMG LLP

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2013.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
February 26, 2016March 1, 2018


B-B - 8




PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS
 
 Year Ended December 31,
 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands, except per share amounts)
Electric Operating Revenues$1,439,082
 $1,435,853
 $1,387,923
Operating Expenses:     
Cost of energy464,649
 471,556
 432,316
Administrative and general179,100
 171,111
 179,210
Energy production costs176,752
 185,638
 175,819
Regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs167,471
 1,062
 12,235
Depreciation and amortization185,919
 172,634
 166,881
Transmission and distribution costs69,157
 66,571
 70,124
Taxes other than income taxes71,684
 67,584
 64,496
Total operating expenses1,314,732
 1,136,156
 1,101,081
Operating income124,350
 299,697
 286,842
Other Income and Deductions:     
Interest income6,498
 8,483
 10,043
Gains on available-for-sale securities16,060
 10,527
 10,612
Other income26,833
 12,048
 10,572
Other (deductions)(12,728) (10,481) (21,552)
Net other income and deductions36,663
 20,577
 9,675
Interest Charges114,860
 119,627
 121,448
Earnings before Income Taxes46,153
 200,647
 175,069
Income Taxes15,075
 69,738
 59,513
Net Earnings31,078
 130,909
 115,556
(Earnings) Attributable to Valencia Non-controlling Interest(14,910) (14,127) (14,521)
Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements of Subsidiary(528) (528) (528)
Net Earnings Attributable to PNMR$15,640
 $116,254
 $100,507
Net Earnings Attributable to PNMR per Common Share:     
Basic$0.20
 $1.46
 $1.26
Diluted$0.20
 $1.45
 $1.25
The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNMR, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

B- 9




PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

 Year Ended December 31,
 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands)
Net Earnings$31,078
 $130,909
 $115,556
Other Comprehensive Income:     
Unrealized Gains on Available-for-Sale Securities:     
Unrealized holding gains arising during the period, net of income tax (expense) of $(4,310), $(6,812), and $(10,855)6,688
 10,661
 16,564
Reclassification adjustment for (gains) included in net earnings, net of income tax expense of $11,181, $5,461, and $4,734(17,350) (8,401) (7,222)
Pension Liability Adjustment:     
Experience gains (losses), net of income tax (expense) benefit of $1,726, $6,024 and $(6,781)(2,679) (9,258) 10,355
Reclassification adjustment for amortization of experience (gains) losses recognized as net periodic benefit cost, net of income tax expense (benefit) of $(2,332), $(2,032) and $(2,524)3,620
 3,120
 3,840
Fair Value Adjustment for Designated Cash Flow Hedges:     
Change in fair market value, net of income tax (expense) benefit of $(28), $53, and $9844
 (100) (181)
Reclassification adjustment for (gains) losses included in net earnings, net of income tax expense (benefit) of $0, $(195), and $(73)
 363
 134
Total Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)(9,677) (3,615) 23,490
Comprehensive Income21,401
 127,294
 139,046
Comprehensive (Income) Attributable to Valencia Non-controlling Interest(14,910) (14,127) (14,521)
Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements of Subsidiary(528) (528) (528)
Comprehensive Income Attributable to PNMR$5,963
 $112,639
 $123,997
The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNMR, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

B- 10



PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 Year Ended December 31,
 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands)
Cash Flows From Operating Activities:     
Net earnings$31,078
 $130,909
 $115,556
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash flows from operating activities:     
 Depreciation and amortization
222,861
 209,867
 208,173
Deferred income tax expense16,451
 72,481
 60,430
Net unrealized (gains) losses on commodity derivatives5,188
 (6,504) (1,866)
Realized (gains) on available-for-sale securities(16,060) (10,527) (10,612)
Loss on reacquired debt
 
 3,253
Stock based compensation expense4,863
 5,931
 5,320
Regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs167,471
 1,062
 12,235
Allowance for equity funds used during construction(10,430) (5,563) (4,382)
Other, net3,934
 4,045
 2,735
Changes in certain assets and liabilities:     
Accounts receivable and unbilled revenues(3,298) (4,975) (7,562)
Materials, supplies, and fuel stock(180) 5,504
 (7,580)
Other current assets29,370
 (30,436) 8,577
Other assets2,369
 290
 (12,801)
Accounts payable(32,269) (2,311) 4,484
Accrued interest and taxes4,957
 2,040
 91,537
Other current liabilities2,633
 (2,453) (19,648)
Other liabilities(42,064) 45,516
 (61,262)
Net cash flows from operating activities386,874
 414,876
 386,587
Cash Flows From Investing Activities:     
Additions to utility and non-utility plant(558,589) (460,658) (348,039)
Proceeds from sales of available-for-sale securities252,174
 117,989
 271,140
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(262,548) (127,016) (282,000)
Return of principal on PVNGS lessor notes21,694
 20,758
 23,357
Purchase of Rio Bravo
 (36,235) 
Other, net2,741
 (167) 4,096
Net cash flows from investing activities(544,528) (485,329) (331,446)
 Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In thousands, except per share amounts)
Electric Operating Revenues$1,445,003
 $1,362,951
 $1,439,082
Operating Expenses:     
Cost of energy407,479
 380,596
 464,649
Administrative and general186,345
 191,514
 179,100
Energy production costs137,450
 146,187
 176,752
Regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs27,036
 15,011
 167,471
Depreciation and amortization231,942
 209,110
 185,919
Transmission and distribution costs71,576
 66,227
 69,157
Taxes other than income taxes76,690
 76,321
 71,684
Total operating expenses1,138,518
 1,084,966
 1,314,732
Operating income306,485
 277,985
 124,350
Other Income and Deductions:     
Interest income15,916
 22,293
 6,498
Gains on available-for-sale securities27,161
 19,517
 16,060
Other income19,515
 17,796
 26,833
Other (deductions)(15,693) (13,784) (12,728)
Net other income and deductions46,899
 45,822
 36,663
Interest Charges127,625
 128,633
 114,860
Earnings before Income Taxes225,759
 195,174
 46,153
Income Taxes130,340
 63,278
 15,075
Net Earnings95,419
 131,896
 31,078
(Earnings) Attributable to Valencia Non-controlling Interest(15,017) (14,519) (14,910)
Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements of Subsidiary(528) (528) (528)
Net Earnings Attributable to PNMR$79,874
 $116,849
 $15,640
Net Earnings Attributable to PNMR per Common Share:     
Basic$1.00
 $1.47
 $0.20
Diluted$1.00
 $1.46
 $0.20
The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNMR, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


B- 11B - 9




PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 Year Ended December 31,
 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands)
Cash Flows From Financing Activities:     
Short-term loan50,000
 
 
Revolving credit facilities borrowings (repayments), net95,000
 (43,600) (9,500)
Long-term borrowings463,605
 355,000
 75,000
Repayment of long-term debt(333,066) (125,000) (29,468)
Cash paid in debt exchange
 
 (13,048)
Proceeds from stock option exercise5,619
 6,999
 4,618
Purchases to satisfy awards of common stock(17,720) (17,319) (13,807)
Dividends paid(64,251) (59,468) (51,508)
Valencia’s transactions with its owner(17,049) (17,610) (18,335)
  Other, net(6,707) (2,808) (5,545)
Net cash flows from financing activities175,431
 96,194
 (61,593)
Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents17,777
 25,741
 (6,452)
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Year28,274
 2,533
 8,985
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Year$46,051
 $28,274
 $2,533
Supplemental Cash Flow Disclosures:     
Interest paid, net of amounts capitalized$103,382
 $108,741
 $110,768
Income taxes paid (refunded), net$(1,890) $(2,597) $(95,327)
      
Supplemental schedule of noncash investing and financing activities:     
Changes in accrued plant additions$(19,080) $(3,089) $(6,006)
Premium on long-term debt incurred in connection with debt exchange  

 $36,297
PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

 Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In thousands)
Net Earnings$95,419
 $131,896
 $31,078
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss):     
Unrealized Gains on Available-for-Sale Securities:     
Unrealized holding gains arising during the period, net of income tax (expense) of $(10,927), $(304), and $(4,310)17,233
 474
 6,688
Reclassification adjustment for (gains) included in net earnings, net of income tax expense of $6,816, $8,639, and $11,181(10,751) (13,500) (17,350)
Pension Liability Adjustment:     
Experience gains (losses), net of income tax (expense) benefit of $(919), $7,219, and $1,7262,699
 (11,282) (2,679)
Reclassification adjustment for amortization of experience (gains) losses recognized as net periodic benefit cost, net of income tax expense (benefit) of $(2,504), $(2,148), and $(2,332)3,948
 3,356
 3,620
Fair Value Adjustment for Cash Flow Hedges:     
Change in fair market value, net of income tax (expense) benefit of $(388), $341, and $(28)612
 (533) 44
Reclassification adjustment for (gains) losses included in net earnings, net of income tax expense (benefit) of $(225), $(298), and $0356
 466
 
Total Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)14,097
 (21,019) (9,677)
Comprehensive Income109,516
 110,877
 21,401
Comprehensive (Income) Attributable to Valencia Non-controlling Interest(15,017) (14,519) (14,910)
Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements of Subsidiary(528) (528) (528)
Comprehensive Income Attributable to PNMR$93,971
 $95,830
 $5,963
The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNMR, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

B - 10



PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In thousands)
Cash Flows From Operating Activities:     
Net earnings$95,419
 $131,896
 $31,078
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash flows from operating activities:     
 Depreciation and amortization
268,194
 242,033
 222,861
Deferred income tax expense130,528
 63,805
 16,451
Net unrealized (gains) losses on commodity derivatives2,875
 1,577
 5,188
Realized (gains) on available-for-sale securities(27,161) (19,517) (16,060)
Stock based compensation expense6,194
 5,634
 4,863
Regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs27,036
 15,011
 167,471
Allowance for equity funds used during construction(9,516) (4,949) (10,430)
Other, net2,329
 3,060
 3,934
Changes in certain assets and liabilities:     
Accounts receivable and unbilled revenues(1,846) 2,543
 (3,298)
Materials, supplies, and fuel stock1,473
 (4,169) (180)
Other current assets32,298
 (2,469) 29,370
Other assets(5,486) (42,864) 2,369
Accounts payable14,468
 3,159
 (32,269)
Accrued interest and taxes(327) 3,345
 4,957
Other current liabilities(6,513) (12,509) 2,633
Other liabilities(5,503) 29,868
 (42,064)
Net cash flows from operating activities524,462
 415,454
 386,874
Cash Flows From Investing Activities:     
Additions to utility and non-utility plant(500,461) (600,076) (558,589)
Proceeds from sales of available-for-sale securities637,492
 522,601
 252,174
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(650,284) (538,383) (262,548)
Return of principal on PVNGS lessor notes
 8,547
 21,694
Investments in NMRD(4,077) 
 
Disbursements from NMRD12,415
 
 
Investment in Westmoreland Loan
 (122,250) 
Principal repayments on Westmoreland Loan38,360
 30,000
 
Other, net392
 186
 2,741
Net cash flows from investing activities(466,163) (699,375) (544,528)
The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNMR, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.




B- 12B - 11




PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

 December 31,
 2015 2014
 (In thousands)
ASSETS   
Current Assets:   
Cash and cash equivalents$46,051
 $28,274
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $1,397 and $1,46698,699
 87,038
Unbilled revenues52,012
 63,719
Other receivables28,590
 39,857
Materials, supplies, and fuel stock67,386
 63,628
Regulatory assets1,070
 47,855
Commodity derivative instruments3,813
 11,232
Income taxes receivable5,845
 6,360
Other current assets82,104
 58,471
Total current assets385,570
 406,434
Other Property and Investments:   
Investment in PVNGS lessor notes
 9,538
Available-for-sale securities259,042
 250,145
Other investments604
 1,762
Non-utility property3,404
 3,406
Total other property and investments263,050
 264,851
Utility Plant:   
Plant in service, held for future use, and to be abandoned6,307,261
 5,941,581
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization2,058,772
 1,939,760
 4,248,489
 4,001,821
Construction work in progress204,766
 190,389
Nuclear fuel, net of accumulated amortization of $44,455 and $44,50782,117
 77,796
Net utility plant4,535,372
 4,270,006
Deferred Charges and Other Assets:   
Regulatory assets470,664
 491,007
Goodwill278,297
 278,297
Commodity derivative instruments2,622
 
Other deferred charges73,753
 79,642
Total deferred charges and other assets825,336
 848,946
 $6,009,328
 $5,790,237
PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In thousands)
Cash Flows From Financing Activities:     
Short-term loan
 100,000
 50,000
Repayment of short-term loan
 (150,000) 
Revolving credit facilities borrowings (repayments), net18,300
 86,500
 95,000
Long-term borrowings317,000
 603,500
 463,605
Repayment of long-term debt(274,070) (303,793) (333,066)
Proceeds from stock option exercise1,739
 7,028
 5,619
Awards of common stock(13,929) (15,451) (17,720)
Dividends paid(77,792) (70,623) (64,251)
Valencia’s transactions with its owner(17,742) (17,006) (17,049)
Amounts received under transmission interconnection arrangements11,879
 7,171
 27
Refunds paid under transmission interconnection arrangements(21,290) (2,830) (2,338)
  Other, net(2,942) (2,104) (4,396)
Net cash flows from financing activities(58,847) 242,392
 175,431
Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents(548) (41,529) 17,777
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Year4,522
 46,051
 28,274
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Year$3,974
 $4,522
 $46,051
Supplemental Cash Flow Disclosures:     
Interest paid, net of amounts capitalized$120,955
 $115,043
 $103,382
Income taxes paid (refunded), net$625
 $(307) $(1,890)
      
Supplemental schedule of noncash investing and financing activities:     
(Increase) decrease in accrued plant additions$(25,261) $18,345
 $(19,080)
Contribution of utility plant to NMRD$24,829
 

 

The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNMR, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.





B- 13B - 12




PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
 December 31,
 2015 2014
 
(In thousands, except share
information)
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY   
Current Liabilities:   
Short-term debt$250,600
 $105,600
Current installments of long-term debt124,979
 332,871
Accounts payable100,419
 110,029
Customer deposits12,216
 12,555
Accrued interest and taxes58,306
 53,863
Regulatory liabilities15,591
 1,703
Commodity derivative instruments1,859
 1,209
Dividends declared17,656
 16,063
Other current liabilities59,494
 70,194
Total current liabilities641,120
 704,087
Long-term Debt, net of Unamortized Premiums, Discounts, and Debt Issuance Costs1,966,969
 1,629,514
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities:   
Accumulated deferred income taxes877,393
 864,728
Regulatory liabilities467,413
 466,143
Asset retirement obligations111,895
 104,170
Accrued pension liability and postretirement benefit cost73,097
 110,738
Commodity derivative instruments
 477
Other deferred credits133,692
 103,759
Total deferred credits and other liabilities1,663,490
 1,650,015
Total liabilities4,271,579
 3,983,616
Commitments and Contingencies (See Note 16)
 
Cumulative Preferred Stock of Subsidiary   
without mandatory redemption requirements ($100 stated value; 10,000,000 shares authorized; issued and outstanding 115,293 shares)11,529
 11,529
Equity:   
PNMR common stockholders’ equity:   
Common stock (no par value; 120,000,000 shares authorized; issued and outstanding 79,653,624 shares)1,166,465
 1,173,845
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of income taxes(71,432) (61,755)
Retained earnings559,780
 609,456
Total PNMR common stockholders’ equity1,654,813
 1,721,546
Non-controlling interest in Valencia71,407
 73,546
Total equity1,726,220
 1,795,092
 $6,009,328
 $5,790,237
PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

 December 31,
 2017 2016
 (In thousands)
ASSETS   
Current Assets:   
Cash and cash equivalents$3,974
 $4,522
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $1,081 and $1,20990,473
 87,012
Unbilled revenues54,055
 58,284
Other receivables17,582
 28,245
Current portion of Westmoreland Loan3,576
 38,360
Materials, supplies, and fuel stock66,502
 73,027
Regulatory assets2,933
 3,855
Commodity derivative instruments1,088
 5,224
Income taxes receivable6,879
 6,066
Other current assets47,358
 73,444
Total current assets294,420
 378,039
Other Property and Investments:   
Long-term portion of Westmoreland Loan53,064
 56,640
Available-for-sale securities323,524
 272,977
Equity investment in NMRD16,510
 
Other investments503
 547
Non-utility property3,404
 3,404
Total other property and investments397,005
 333,568
Utility Plant:   
Plant in service, held for future use, and to be abandoned7,238,285
 6,944,534
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization2,592,692
 2,334,938
 4,645,593
 4,609,596
Construction work in progress245,933
 208,206
Nuclear fuel, net of accumulated amortization of $43,524 and $43,90588,701
 86,913
Net utility plant4,980,227
 4,904,715
Deferred Charges and Other Assets:   
Regulatory assets600,672
 501,223
Goodwill278,297
 278,297
Commodity derivative instruments3,556
 
Other deferred charges91,926
 75,238
Total deferred charges and other assets974,451
 854,758
 $6,646,103
 $6,471,080
The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNMR, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.





B- 14B - 13




PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
  
Attributable to PNMR

 
Non-
controlling
Interest
in Valencia
  
  PNMR Common Stockholders’ Equity   
  
Common
Stock
 AOCI 
Retained
Earnings
 Total  
Total
Equity
  (In thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2012 $1,182,819
 $(81,630) $506,998
 $1,608,187
 $80,843
 $1,689,030
Proceeds from stock option exercise 4,618
 
 
 4,618
 
 4,618
Purchases to satisfy awards of common stock (13,807) 
 
 (13,807) 
 (13,807)
Excess tax (shortfall) from stock-based payment arrangements (581) 
 
 (581) 
 (581)
Stock based compensation expense 5,320
 
 
 5,320
 
 5,320
Valencia’s transactions with its owner 
 
 
 
 (18,335) (18,335)
Net earnings before subsidiary preferred stock dividends 
 
 101,035
 101,035
 14,521
 115,556
Subsidiary preferred stock dividends 
 
 (528) (528) 
 (528)
Total other comprehensive income 
 23,490
 
 23,490
 
 23,490
Dividends declared on common stock 
 
 (54,165) (54,165) 
 (54,165)
Balance at December 31, 2013 1,178,369
 (58,140) 553,340
 1,673,569
 77,029
 1,750,598
Proceeds from stock option exercise 6,999
 
 
 6,999
 
 6,999
Purchases to satisfy awards of common stock (17,319) 
 ���
 (17,319) 
 (17,319)
Excess tax (shortfall) from stock-based payment arrangements (135) 
 
 (135) 
 (135)
Stock based compensation expense 5,931
 
 
 5,931
 
 5,931
Valencia’s transactions with its owner 
 
 
 
 (17,610) (17,610)
Net earnings before subsidiary preferred stock dividends 
 
 116,782
 116,782
 14,127
 130,909
Subsidiary preferred stock dividends 
 
 (528) (528) 
 (528)
Total other comprehensive income (loss) 
 (3,615) 
 (3,615) 
 (3,615)
Dividends declared on common stock 
 
 (60,138) (60,138) 
 (60,138)
Balance at December 31, 2014 1,173,845
 (61,755) 609,456
 1,721,546
 73,546
 1,795,092
Proceeds from stock option exercise 5,619
 
 
 5,619
 
 5,619
Purchases to satisfy awards of common stock (17,720) 
 
 (17,720) 
 (17,720)
Excess tax (shortfall) from stock-based payment arrangements (142) 
 
 (142) 
 (142)
Stock based compensation expense 4,863
 
 
 4,863
 
 4,863
Valencia’s transactions with its owner 
 
 
 
 (17,049) (17,049)
Net earnings before subsidiary preferred stock dividends 
 
 16,168
 16,168
 14,910
 31,078
Subsidiary preferred stock dividends 
 
 (528) (528) 
 (528)
Total other comprehensive income (loss) 
 (9,677) 
 (9,677) 
 (9,677)
Dividends declared on common stock 
 
 (65,316) (65,316) 
 (65,316)
Balance at December 31, 2015 $1,166,465
 $(71,432) $559,780
 $1,654,813
 $71,407
 $1,726,220
PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
 December 31,
 2017 2016
 
(In thousands, except share
information)
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY   
Current Liabilities:   
Short-term debt$305,400
 $287,100
Current installments of long-term debt256,895
 273,348
Accounts payable121,383
 86,705
Customer deposits11,028
 11,374
Accrued interest and taxes62,357
 61,871
Regulatory liabilities2,309
 3,609
Commodity derivative instruments1,182
 2,339
Dividends declared21,240
 19,448
Other current liabilities53,850
 59,314
Total current liabilities835,644
 805,108
Long-term Debt, net of Unamortized Premiums, Discounts, and Debt Issuance Costs2,180,750
 2,119,364
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities:   
Accumulated deferred income taxes547,210
 940,650
Regulatory liabilities933,578
 455,649
Asset retirement obligations146,679
 127,519
Accrued pension liability and postretirement benefit cost94,003
 125,844
Commodity derivative instruments3,556
 
Other deferred credits131,706
 140,545
Total deferred credits and other liabilities1,856,732
 1,790,207
Total liabilities4,873,126
 4,714,679
Commitments and Contingencies (See Note 16)
 
Cumulative Preferred Stock of Subsidiary   
without mandatory redemption requirements ($100 stated value; 10,000,000 shares authorized; issued and outstanding 115,293 shares)11,529
 11,529
Equity:   
PNMR common stockholders’ equity:   
Common stock (no par value; 120,000,000 shares authorized; issued and outstanding 79,653,624 shares)1,157,665
 1,163,661
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of income taxes(95,940) (92,451)
Retained earnings633,528
 604,742
Total PNMR common stockholders’ equity1,695,253
 1,675,952
Non-controlling interest in Valencia66,195
 68,920
Total equity1,761,448
 1,744,872
 $6,646,103
 $6,471,080
The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNMR, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


B- 15B - 14




PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS (LOSS)

 Year Ended December 31,
 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands)
Electric Operating Revenues$1,131,195
 $1,147,914
 $1,116,312
Operating Expenses:     
Cost of energy391,131
 403,626
 374,710
Administrative and general161,953
 152,645
 157,144
Energy production costs176,752
 185,638
 175,819
Regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs167,471
 1,062
 12,235
Depreciation and amortization115,717
 109,524
 103,826
Transmission and distribution costs43,642
 43,128
 45,936
Taxes other than income taxes41,149
 39,578
 37,457
Total operating expenses1,097,815
 935,201
 907,127
Operating income33,380
 212,713
 209,185
Other Income and Deductions:     
Interest income6,574
 8,557
 10,182
Gains on available-for-sale securities16,060
 10,527
 10,612
Other income19,347
 8,949
 7,650
Other (deductions)(8,493) (7,218) (6,974)
Net other income and deductions33,488
 20,815
 21,470
Interest Charges79,950
 79,442
 79,175
Earnings (Loss) before Income Taxes(13,082) 154,086
 151,480
Income Taxes (Benefit)(12,758) 52,633
 48,804
Net Earnings (Loss)(324) 101,453
 102,676
(Earnings) Attributable to Valencia Non-controlling Interest(14,910) (14,127) (14,521)
Net Earnings (Loss) Attributable to PNM(15,234) 87,326
 88,155
Preferred Stock Dividends Requirements(528) (528) (528)
Net Earnings (Loss) Available for PNM Common Stock$(15,762) $86,798
 $87,627
PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
  
Attributable to PNMR

 
Non-
controlling
Interest
in Valencia
  
        Total PNMR Common Stockholder’s Equity   
  
Common
Stock
 AOCI 
Retained
Earnings
   
Total
Equity
  (In thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2014 $1,173,845
 $(61,755) $609,456
 $1,721,546
 $73,546
 $1,795,092
Net earnings before subsidiary preferred stock dividends 
 
 16,168
 16,168
 14,910
 31,078
Total other comprehensive income (loss) 
 (9,677) 
 (9,677) 
 (9,677)
Subsidiary preferred stock dividends 
 
 (528) (528) 
 (528)
Dividends declared on common stock 
 
 (65,316) (65,316) 
 (65,316)
Proceeds from stock option exercise 5,619
 
 
 5,619
 
 5,619
Awards of common stock (17,720) 
 
 (17,720) 
 (17,720)
Excess tax (shortfall) from stock-based payment arrangements (142) 
 
 (142) 
 (142)
Stock based compensation expense 4,863
 
 
 4,863
 
 4,863
Valencia’s transactions with its owner 
 
 
 
 (17,049) (17,049)
Balance at December 31, 2015 1,166,465
 (71,432) 559,780
 1,654,813
 71,407
 1,726,220
Net earnings before subsidiary preferred stock dividends 
 
 117,377
 117,377
 14,519
 131,896
Total other comprehensive income (loss) 
 (21,019) 
 (21,019) 
 (21,019)
Subsidiary preferred stock dividends 
 
 (528) (528) 
 (528)
Dividends declared on common stock 
 
 (71,887) (71,887) 
 (71,887)
Proceeds from stock option exercise 7,028
 
 
 7,028
 
 7,028
Awards of common stock (15,451) 
 
 (15,451) 
 (15,451)
Excess tax (shortfall) from stock-based payment arrangements (15) 
 
 (15) 
 (15)
Stock based compensation expense 5,634
 
 
 5,634
 
 5,634
Valencia’s transactions with its owner 
 
 
 
 (17,006) (17,006)
Balance at December 31, 2016, as originally reported 1,163,661
 (92,451) 604,742
 1,675,952
 68,920
 1,744,872
Cumulative effect adjustment (Note 13) 
 
 10,382
 10,382
 
 10,382
Balance at January 1, 2017, as adjusted 1,163,661
 (92,451) 615,124
 1,686,334
 68,920
 1,755,254
Reclassification of stranded income taxes resulting from tax reform (Note 11) 
 (17,586) 17,586
 
 
 
Net earnings before subsidiary preferred stock dividends 
 
 80,402
 80,402
 15,017
 95,419
Total other comprehensive income 
 14,097
 
 14,097
 
 14,097
Subsidiary preferred stock dividends 
 
 (528) (528) 
 (528)
Dividends declared on common stock 
 
 (79,056) (79,056) 
 (79,056)
Proceeds from stock option exercise 1,739
 
 
 1,739
 
 1,739
Awards of common stock (13,929) 
 
 (13,929) 
 (13,929)
Stock based compensation expense 6,194
 
 
 6,194
 
 6,194
Valencia’s transactions with its owner 
 
 
 
 (17,742) (17,742)
Balance at December 31, 2017 $1,157,665
 $(95,940) $633,528
 $1,695,253
 $66,195
 $1,761,448
The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNMR, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

B - 15




PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS (LOSS)

 Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In thousands)
Electric Operating Revenues$1,104,230
 $1,035,913
 $1,131,195
Operating Expenses:     
Cost of energy321,677
 299,714
 391,131
Administrative and general172,446
 169,209
 161,953
Energy production costs137,450
 146,187
 176,752
Regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs27,036
 15,011
 167,471
Depreciation and amortization147,017
 133,447
 115,717
Transmission and distribution costs42,370
 39,657
 43,642
Taxes other than income taxes43,709
 44,598
 41,149
Total operating expenses891,705
 847,823
 1,097,815
Operating income212,525
 188,090
 33,380
Other Income and Deductions:     
Interest income8,454
 10,173
 6,574
Gains on available-for-sale securities27,161
 19,517
 16,060
Other income13,527
 12,088
 19,347
Other (deductions)(10,002) (9,539) (8,493)
Net other income and deductions39,140
 32,239
 33,488
Interest Charges82,697
 87,469
 79,950
Earnings (Loss) before Income Taxes168,968
 132,860
 (13,082)
Income Taxes (Benefit)81,555
 40,922
 (12,758)
Net Earnings (Loss)87,413
 91,938
 (324)
(Earnings) Attributable to Valencia Non-controlling Interest(15,017) (14,519) (14,910)
Net Earnings (Loss) Attributable to PNM72,396
 77,419
 (15,234)
Preferred Stock Dividends Requirements(528) (528) (528)
Net Earnings (Loss) Available for PNM Common Stock$71,868
 $76,891
 $(15,762)
The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNM, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

B-B - 16



PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Net Earnings (Loss)$(324) $101,453
 $102,676
$87,413
 $91,938
 $(324)
Other Comprehensive Income:     
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss):     
Unrealized Gains on Available-for-Sale Securities:          
Unrealized holding gains arising during the period, net of income tax (expense) of $(4,310), $(6,812), and $(10,855)6,688
 10,661
 16,564
Reclassification adjustment for (gains) included in net earnings, net of income tax expense of $11,181, $5,461, and $4,734(17,350) (8,401) (7,222)
Unrealized holding gains arising during the period, net of income tax (expense) of $(10,927), $(304), and $(4,310)17,233
 474
 6,688
Reclassification adjustment for (gains) included in net earnings, net of income tax expense of $6,816, $8,639, and $11,181(10,751) (13,500) (17,350)
Pension Liability Adjustment:          
Experience gains (losses), net of income tax (expense) benefit of $1,726, $6,024 and $(6,781)(2,679) (9,258) 10,355
Reclassification adjustment for amortization of experience (gains) losses recognized as net periodic benefit cost, net of income tax expense (benefit) of $(2,332), $(2,032) and $(2,524)3,620
 3,120
 3,840
Experience gains (losses), net of income tax (expense) benefit of $(919), $7,219, and $1,7262,699
 (11,282) (2,679)
Reclassification adjustment for amortization of experience (gains) losses recognized as net periodic benefit cost, net of income tax expense (benefit) of $(2,504), $(2,148), and $(2,332)3,948
 3,356
 3,620
Total Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)(9,721) (3,878) 23,537
13,129
 (20,952) (9,721)
Comprehensive Income (Loss)(10,045) 97,575
 126,213
100,542
 70,986
 (10,045)
Comprehensive (Income) Attributable to Valencia Non-controlling Interest(14,910) (14,127) (14,521)(15,017) (14,519) (14,910)
Comprehensive Income (Loss) Attributable to PNM$(24,955) $83,448
 $111,692
$85,525
 $56,467
 $(24,955)

The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNM, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


B-B - 17



PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Cash Flows From Operating Activities:          
Net earnings (loss)$(324) $101,453
 $102,676
$87,413
 $91,938
 $(324)
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash flows from operating activities:
 
 

 
 
Depreciation and amortization150,538
 143,303
 136,732
180,500
 166,047
 150,538
Deferred income tax expense(2,836) 55,787
 50,043
82,549
 53,119
 (2,836)
Net unrealized (gains) losses on commodity derivatives5,188
 (6,504) (1,866)2,875
 1,577
 5,188
Realized (gains) on available-for-sale securities(16,060) (10,527) (10,612)(27,161) (19,517) (16,060)
Regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs167,471
 1,062
 12,235
27,036
 15,011
 167,471
Allowance for equity funds used during construction(10,430) (5,563) (4,382)(8,664) (4,163) (10,430)
Other, net2,794
 4,172
 2,768
2,615
 3,046
 2,794
Changes in certain assets and liabilities:
 
 

 
 
Accounts receivable and unbilled revenues(2,515) (5,919) (3,021)(419) 4,769
 (2,515)
Materials, supplies, and fuel stock381
 5,570
 (7,730)3,542
 (3,924) 381
Other current assets23,693
 (29,146) 8,556
32,775
 1,127
 23,693
Other assets4,194
 7,150
 (13,363)15,121
 (23,880) 4,194
Accounts payable(31,139) 212
 2,807
9,736
 5,614
 (31,139)
Accrued interest and taxes(5,343) (3,599) 72,740
21,523
 (9,601) (5,343)
Other current liabilities(275) (659) (27,376)(11,099) (12,136) (275)
Other liabilities(33,503) 42,325
 (59,753)(9,389) 20,119
 (33,503)
Net cash flows from operating activities251,834
 299,117
 260,454
408,953
 289,146
 251,834
Cash Flows From Investing Activities:          
Utility plant additions(404,840) (316,800) (239,906)(309,142) (445,464)��(404,840)
Proceeds from sales of available-for-sale securities252,174
 117,989
 271,140
637,492
 522,601
 252,174
Purchases of available-for-sale securities(262,548) (127,016) (282,000)(650,284) (538,383) (262,548)
Return of principal on PVNGS lessor notes21,694
 20,758
 23,357

 8,547
 21,694
Purchase of Rio Bravo
 (36,235) 
Other, net2,935
 (363) 3,843
33
 171
 2,935
Net cash flows from investing activities(390,585) (341,667) (223,566)(321,901) (452,528) (390,585)

The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNM, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


B-B - 18



PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

Year ended December 31,Year ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Cash Flows From Financing Activities:          
Short-term borrowings (repayments), net
 (49,200) 28,100
(21,200) 61,000
 
Short-term borrowings (repayments) - affiliate, net
 (32,500) 32,500
Long-term borrowings313,605
 275,000
 75,000
257,000
 321,000
 313,605
Repayment of long-term debt(214,300) (75,000) 
(232,000) (271,000) (214,300)
Equity contribution from parent175,000
 
 

 28,142
 175,000
Valencia’s transactions with its owner(17,049) (17,610) (18,335)(17,742) (17,006) (17,049)
Dividends paid(94,968) (30,791) (155,556)(61,223) (4,670) (94,968)
Amounts received under transmission interconnection arrangements11,879
 7,171
 27
Refunds paid under transmission interconnection arrangements(21,290) (2,830) (2,338)
Other, net(5,879) (1,890) (2,534)(1,692) (1,239) (3,568)
Net cash flows from financing activities156,409
 68,009
 (40,825)(86,268) 120,568
 156,409
          
Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents17,658
 25,459
 (3,937)784
 (42,814) 17,658
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Year25,480
 21
 3,958
324
 43,138
 25,480
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Year$43,138
 $25,480
 $21
$1,108
 $324
 $43,138
          
Supplemental Cash Flow Disclosures:          
Interest paid, net of amounts capitalized$69,936
 $73,787
 $71,306
$77,960
 $82,514
 $69,936
Income taxes paid (refunded), net$(1,450) $(228) $(77,434)$(23,391) $(967) $(1,450)
          
Supplemental schedule of noncash investing activities:          
Changes in accrued plant additions$(17,469) $(1,616) $(7,921)
(Increase) decrease in accrued plant additions$(11,792) $22,433
 $(17,469)

The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNM, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

B-B - 19




PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
December 31,December 31,
2015 20142017 2016
(In thousands)(In thousands)
ASSETS      
Current Assets:      
Cash and cash equivalents$43,138
 $25,480
$1,108
 $324
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $1,397 and $1,46678,291
 67,622
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $1,081 and $1,20967,227
 65,003
Unbilled revenues42,641
 54,140
43,869
 48,289
Other receivables24,725
 37,622
14,541
 25,514
Affiliate receivables15,105
 8,853
9,486
 8,886
Materials, supplies, and fuel stock60,477
 60,859
60,859
 64,401
Regulatory assets
 43,980
2,139
 3,442
Commodity derivative instruments3,813
 11,232
1,088
 5,224
Income taxes receivable14,577
 6,105
3,410
 25,807
Other current assets74,990
 53,095
39,904
 67,355
Total current assets357,757
 368,988
243,631
 314,245
Other Property and Investments:      
Investment in PVNGS lessor notes
 9,538
Available-for-sale securities259,042
 250,145
323,524
 272,977
Other investments366
 397
283
 316
Non-utility property96
 96
96
 96
Total other property and investments259,504
 260,176
323,903
 273,389
Utility Plant:      
Plant in service, held for future use, and to be abandoned4,833,303
 4,581,066
5,501,070
 5,359,211
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization1,569,549
 1,486,406
2,029,534
 1,809,528
3,263,754
 3,094,660
3,471,536
 3,549,683
Construction work in progress172,238
 169,673
204,079
 158,122
Nuclear fuel, net of accumulated amortization of $44,455 and $44,50782,117
 77,796
Nuclear fuel, net of accumulated amortization of $43,524 and $43,90588,701
 86,913
Net utility plant3,518,109
 3,342,129
3,764,316
 3,794,718
Deferred Charges and Other Assets:      
Regulatory assets342,910
 357,045
459,239
 365,413
Goodwill51,632
 51,632
51,632
 51,632
Commodity derivative instruments2,622
 
3,556
 
Other deferred charges66,810
 73,144
75,286
 68,149
Total deferred charges and other assets463,974
 481,821
589,713
 485,194
$4,599,344
 $4,453,114
$4,921,563
 $4,867,546
The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNM, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

 






B-B - 20



PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
December 31,December 31,
2015 20142017 2016
(In thousands, except share
information)
(In thousands, except share
information)
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY      
Current Liabilities:      
Short-term debt$39,800
 $61,000
Current installments of long-term debt$124,979
 $214,264
23
 231,880
Accounts payable72,386
 86,055
77,094
 55,566
Affiliate payables14,318
 18,232
22,875
 23,183
Customer deposits12,216
 12,555
11,028
 11,374
Accrued interest and taxes33,189
 29,298
33,945
 34,819
Regulatory liabilities15,591
 1,703
784
 3,517
Commodity derivative instruments1,859
 1,209
1,182
 2,339
Dividends declared132
 132
132
 132
Other current liabilities42,251
 52,053
31,633
 33,551
Total current liabilities316,921
 415,501
218,496
 457,361
Long-term Debt, net of Unamortized Premiums, Discounts, and Debt Issuance Costs1,455,698
 1,268,273
1,657,887
 1,399,489
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities:      
Accumulated deferred income taxes696,384
 703,396
449,012
 748,666
Regulatory liabilities434,863
 425,481
754,441
 423,701
Asset retirement obligations111,049
 103,182
145,707
 126,601
Accrued pension liability and postretirement benefit cost66,285
 102,850
86,124
 114,427
Commodity derivative instruments
 477
3,556
 
Other deferred credits117,275
 86,023
106,442
 118,980
Total deferred credits and liabilities1,425,856
 1,421,409
1,545,282
 1,532,375
Total liabilities3,198,475
 3,105,183
3,421,665
 3,389,225
Commitments and Contingencies (See Note 16)
 

 
Cumulative Preferred Stock      
without mandatory redemption requirements ($100 stated value; 10,000,000 shares authorized; issued and outstanding 115,293 shares)11,529
 11,529
11,529
 11,529
Equity:      
PNM common stockholder’s equity:      
Common stock (no par value; 40,000,000 shares authorized; issued and outstanding 39,117,799 shares)1,236,776
 1,061,776
1,264,918
 1,264,918
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of income tax(71,476) (61,755)
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of income taxes(97,093) (92,428)
Retained earnings152,633
 262,835
254,349
 225,382
Total PNM common stockholder’s equity1,317,933
 1,262,856
1,422,174
 1,397,872
Non-controlling interest in Valencia71,407
 73,546
66,195
 68,920
Total equity1,389,340
 1,336,402
1,488,369
 1,466,792
$4,599,344
 $4,453,114
$4,921,563
 $4,867,546
The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNM, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


B-B - 21



PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
Attributable to PNM    Attributable to PNM    
Common
Stock
 AOCI 
Retained
Earnings
 
Total PNM
Common
Stockholder’s
Equity
 
Non-
controlling
Interest
in Valencia
 
Total
Equity
Common
Stock
 AOCI 
Retained
Earnings
 
Total PNM
Common
Stockholder’s
Equity
 
Non-
controlling
Interest
in Valencia
 
Total
Equity
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2012$1,061,776
 $(81,414) $273,701
 $1,254,063
 $80,843
 $1,334,906
Balance at December 31, 2014$1,061,776
 $(61,755) $262,835
 $1,262,856
 $73,546
 $1,336,402
Net earnings (loss)
 
 (15,234) (15,234) 14,910
 (324)
Total other comprehensive income (loss)
 (9,721) 
 (9,721) 
 (9,721)
Dividends declared on preferred stock
 
 (528) (528) 
 (528)
Equity contribution from parent175,000
 
 
 175,000
 
 175,000
Dividends declared on common stock
 
 (94,440) (94,440) 
 (94,440)
Valencia’s transactions with its owner
 
 
 
 (18,335) (18,335)
 
 
 
 (17,049) (17,049)
Balance at December 31, 20151,236,776
 (71,476) 152,633
 1,317,933
 71,407
 1,389,340
Net earnings
 
 77,419
 77,419
 14,519
 91,938
Total other comprehensive income (loss)
 (20,952) 
 (20,952) 
 (20,952)
Dividends declared on preferred stock
 
 (528) (528) 
 (528)
Equity contributions from parent28,142
 
 
 28,142
 
 28,142
Dividends declared on common stock
 
 (4,142) (4,142) 
 (4,142)
Valencia’s transactions with its owner
 
 
 
 (17,006) (17,006)
Balance at December 31, 20161,264,918
 (92,428) 225,382
 1,397,872
 68,920
 1,466,792
Reclassification of stranded income taxes resulting from tax reform (Note 11)
 (17,794) 17,794
 
 
 
Net earnings
 
 88,155
 88,155
 14,521
 102,676

 
 72,396
 72,396
 15,017
 87,413
Total other comprehensive income
 23,537
 
 23,537
 
 23,537

 13,129
 
 13,129
 
 13,129
Dividends declared on preferred stock
 
 (528) (528) 
 (528)
 
 (528) (528) 
 (528)
Dividends declared on common stock
 
 (155,028) (155,028) 
 (155,028)
 
 (60,695) (60,695) 
 (60,695)
Balance at December 31, 20131,061,776
 (57,877) 206,300
 1,210,199
 77,029
 1,287,228
Valencia’s transactions with its owner
 
 
 
 (17,610) (17,610)
 
 
 
 (17,742) (17,742)
Net earnings
 
 87,326
 87,326
 14,127
 101,453
Total other comprehensive income (loss)
 (3,878) 
 (3,878) 
 (3,878)
Dividends declared on preferred stock
 
 (528) (528) 
 (528)
Dividends declared on common stock
 
 (30,263) (30,263) 
 (30,263)
Balance at December 31, 20141,061,776
 (61,755) 262,835
 1,262,856
 73,546
 1,336,402
Valencia’s transactions with its owner
 
 
 
 (17,049) (17,049)
Net earnings (loss)
 
 (15,234) (15,234) 14,910
 (324)
Total other comprehensive income (loss)
 (9,721) 
 (9,721) 
 (9,721)
Equity contribution from parent175,000
 
 
 175,000
 
 175,000
Dividends declared on preferred stock
 
 (528) (528) 
 (528)
Dividends declared on common stock
 
 (94,440) (94,440) 
 (94,440)
Balance at December 31, 2015$1,236,776
 $(71,476) $152,633
 $1,317,933
 $71,407
 $1,389,340
Balance at December 31, 2017$1,264,918
 $(97,093) $254,349
 $1,422,174
 $66,195
 $1,488,369

The accompanying notes, as they relate to PNM, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


B-B - 22




TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS

TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS

TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS

Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
          
Electric Operating Revenues$307,887
 $287,939
 $271,611
$340,773
 $327,038
 $307,887
Operating Expenses:          
Cost of energy73,518
 67,930
 57,606
85,802
 80,882
 73,518
Administrative and general36,755
 36,982
 44,635
39,828
 39,423
 36,755
Depreciation and amortization56,285
 50,056
 50,219
63,146
 61,126
 56,285
Transmission and distribution costs25,515
 23,443
 24,188
29,206
 26,570
 25,515
Taxes other than income taxes25,781
 23,940
 22,778
29,187
 27,396
 25,781
Total operating expenses217,854
 202,351
 199,426
247,169
 235,397
 217,854
Operating income90,033
 85,588
 72,185
93,604
 91,641
 90,033
Other Income and Deductions:          
Other income4,240
 2,865
 2,377
4,994
 4,629
 4,240
Other (deductions)(504) (727) (458)(1,443) (1,427) (504)
Net other income and deductions3,736
 2,138
 1,919
3,551
 3,202
 3,736
Interest Charges27,681
 27,396
 27,393
30,084
 29,335
 27,681
Earnings Before Income Taxes66,088
 60,330
 46,711
Earnings before Income Taxes67,071
 65,508
 66,088
Income Taxes24,125
 22,523
 17,621
31,512
 23,836
 24,125
Net Earnings$41,963
 $37,807
 $29,090
$35,559
 $41,672
 $41,963
The accompanying notes, as they relate to TNMP, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

B-B - 23




TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
      
 Year Ended December 31,
 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands)
Net Earnings$41,963
 $37,807
 $29,090
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss):     
Fair Value Adjustment for Designated Cash Flow Hedge:     
Change in fair value, net of income tax (expense) benefit of $0, $53, and $98
 (100) (181)
Reclassification adjustment for losses included in net earnings, net of income tax expense (benefit) of $0, $(195), and $(73)
 363
 134
Total Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
 263
 (47)
Comprehensive Income$41,963
 $38,070
 $29,043
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In thousands)
Cash Flows From Operating Activities:     
Net earnings$35,559
 $41,672
 $41,963
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash flows from operating activities:     
Depreciation and amortization64,939
 62,866
 57,909
Deferred income tax expense27,275
 12,662
 20,883
Allowance for equity funds used during construction and other, net(1,120) (772) 18
Changes in certain assets and liabilities:     
Accounts receivable and unbilled revenues(1,427) (2,226) (783)
Materials and supplies(2,069) (245) (561)
Other current assets(1,253) (621) 3,928
Other assets(20,967) (19,126) (2,310)
Accounts payable2,419
 (2,040) (1,782)
Accrued interest and taxes(15,962) 12,690
 4,317
Other current liabilities(2,236) 298
 1,019
Other liabilities1,334
 6,822
 (9,823)
Net cash flows from operating activities86,492
 111,980
 114,778
Cash Flows From Investing Activities:     
Utility plant additions(145,495) (122,518) (124,584)
Net cash flows from investing activities(145,495) (122,518) (124,584)
The accompanying notes, as they relate to TNMP, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


B - 24



TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In thousands)
      
Cash Flow From Financing Activities:     
Short-term borrowings (repayments), net
 (59,000) 54,000
Short-term borrowings (repayments) – affiliate, net(4,600) (7,200) (10,900)
Long-term borrowings60,000
 60,000
 
Equity contribution from parent50,000
 50,000
 
Dividends paid(44,389) (31,817) (33,248)
Other, net(979) (775) (46)
Net cash flows from financing activities60,032
 11,208
 9,806
Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents1,029
 670
 
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Year671
 1
 1
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Year$1,700
 $671
 $1
Supplemental Cash Flow Disclosures:     
Interest paid, net of amounts capitalized$29,251
 $26,766
 $26,216
Income taxes paid, (refunded) net$21,436
 $660
 $290
      
Supplemental schedule of noncash investing and financing activities:     
(Increase) decrease in accrued plant additions$(15,737) $(1,271) $(5)
The accompanying notes, as they relate to TNMP, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

B - 25




TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

 December 31,
 2017 2016
 (In thousands)
ASSETS   
Current Assets:   
Cash and cash equivalents$1,700
 $671
Accounts receivable23,246
 22,009
Unbilled revenues10,186
 9,995
Other receivables2,860
 2,090
Affiliate receivables336
 
Materials and supplies5,643
 8,626
Regulatory assets794
 413
Other current assets1,131
 1,031
Total current assets45,896
 44,835
Other Property and Investments:   
Other investments220
 231
Non-utility property2,240
 2,240
Total other property and investments2,460
 2,471
Utility Plant:   
Plant in service and plant held for future use1,504,778
 1,380,584
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization460,858
 429,397
 1,043,920
 951,187
Construction work in progress34,350
 16,978
Net utility plant1,078,270
 968,165
Deferred Charges and Other Assets:   
Regulatory assets141,433
 135,810
Goodwill226,665
 226,665
Other deferred charges6,046
 5,277
Total deferred charges and other assets374,144
 367,752
 $1,500,770
 $1,383,223
The accompanying notes, as they relate to TNMP, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


B - 26



TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
 December 31,
 2017 2016
 
(In thousands, except share
information)
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY   
Current Liabilities:   
Short-term debt – affiliate$
 $4,600
Accounts payable29,812
 16,709
Affiliate payables667
 3,793
Accrued interest and taxes29,619
 45,581
Regulatory liabilities1,525
 92
Other current liabilities2,450
 2,134
Total current liabilities64,073
 72,909
Long-term Debt, net of Unamortized Premiums, Discounts, and Debt Issuance Costs480,620
 420,875
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities:   
Accumulated deferred income taxes126,415
 245,785
Regulatory liabilities179,137
 31,948
Asset retirement obligations793
 754
Accrued pension liability and postretirement benefit cost7,879
 11,417
Other deferred credits7,448
 6,300
Total deferred credits and other liabilities321,672
 296,204
Total liabilities866,365
 789,988
Commitments and Contingencies (See Note 16)

 

Common Stockholder’s Equity:   
Common stock ($10 par value; 12,000,000 shares authorized; issued and outstanding 6,358 shares)64
 64
Paid-in-capital504,166
 454,166
Retained earnings130,175
 139,005
Total common stockholder’s equity634,405
 593,235
 $1,500,770
 $1,383,223
The accompanying notes, as they relate to TNMP, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

B - 27



TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN COMMON STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY
 
Common
Stock
 
Paid-in
Capital
 
Retained
Earnings
 
Total
Common
Stockholder’s
Equity
 (In thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2014$64
 $404,166
 $120,435
 $524,665
Net earnings
 
 41,963
 41,963
Dividends declared on common stock
 
 (33,248) (33,248)
Balance at December 31, 201564
 404,166
 129,150
 533,380
Net earnings
 
 41,672
 41,672
Equity contributions from parent
 50,000
 
 50,000
Dividends declared on common stock
 
 (31,817) (31,817)
Balance at December 31, 201664
 454,166
 139,005
 593,235
Net earnings
 
 35,559
 35,559
Equity contributions from parent
 50,000
 
 50,000
Dividends declared on common stock
 
 (44,389) (44,389)
Balance at December 31, 2017$64
 $504,166
 $130,175
 $634,405

The accompanying notes, as they relate to TNMP, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

B- 24




TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 Year Ended December 31,
 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands)
Cash Flows From Operating Activities:     
Net earnings$41,963
 $37,807
 $29,090
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash flows from operating activities:     
Depreciation and amortization57,909
 52,847
 54,395
Deferred income tax expense20,883
 20,549
 20,662
Other, net18
 (10) (30)
Changes in certain assets and liabilities:     
Accounts receivable and unbilled revenues(783) 944
 (4,542)
Materials and supplies(561) (66) 150
Other current assets3,928
 380
 (1,137)
Other assets(2,310) (6,607) 941
Accounts payable(1,782) 2,514
 3,709
Accrued interest and taxes4,317
 4,796
 (6,713)
Other current liabilities1,019
 (203) (3,197)
Other liabilities(9,823) 3,112
 460
Net cash flows from operating activities114,778
 116,063
 93,788
Cash Flows From Investing Activities:     
Utility plant additions(124,584) (127,191) (89,117)
Net cash flows from investing activities(124,584) (127,191) (89,117)
The accompanying notes, as they relate to TNMP, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


B- 25



TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 Year Ended December 31,
 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands)
      
Cash Flow From Financing Activities:     
Short-term borrowings (repayments), net54,000
 5,000
 
Short-term borrowings (repayments) – affiliate, net(10,900) (6,700) 1,100
Long-term borrowings
 80,000
 
Repayment of long-term debt
 (50,000) 
Cash paid in debt exchange
 
 (13,048)
Equity contribution from parent
 
 13,800
Dividends paid(33,248) (16,336) (3,726)
Other, net(46) (836) (2,797)
Net cash flows from financing activities9,806
 11,128
 (4,671)
Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents
 
 
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Year1
 1
 1
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Year$1
 $1
 $1
Supplemental Cash Flow Disclosures:     
Interest paid, net of amounts capitalized$26,216
 $22,803
 $25,436
Income taxes paid, (refunded) net$290
 $(355) $4,484
      
Supplemental schedule of noncash investing and financing activities:     
Changes in accrued plant additions$(5) $854
 $(141)
      
Premium on long-term debt incurred in connection with debt exchange  

 $36,297
      
      
The accompanying notes, as they relate to TNMP, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

B- 26




TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

 December 31,
 2015 2014
 (In thousands)
ASSETS   
Current Assets:   
Cash and cash equivalents$1
 $1
Accounts receivable20,408
 19,416
Unbilled revenues9,371
 9,579
Other receivables811
 2,063
Materials and supplies6,909
 2,769
Regulatory assets1,070
 3,875
Other current assets1,053
 938
Total current assets39,623
 38,641
Other Property and Investments:   
Other investments238
 242
Non-utility property2,240
 2,240
Total other property and investments2,478
 2,482
Utility Plant:   
Plant in service and plant held for future use1,285,727
 1,182,112
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization406,516
 375,407
 879,211
 806,705
Construction work in progress16,561
 16,538
Net utility plant895,772
 823,243
Deferred Charges and Other Assets:   
Regulatory assets127,754
 133,962
Goodwill226,665
 226,665
Other deferred charges4,847
 4,424
Total deferred charges and other assets359,266
 365,051
 $1,297,139
 $1,229,417
The accompanying notes, as they relate to TNMP, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.


B- 27



TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
 December 31,
 2015 2014
 
(In thousands, except share
information)
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY   
Current Liabilities:   
Short-term debt$59,000
 $5,000
Short-term debt – affiliate11,800
 22,700
Accounts payable16,006
 14,203
Affiliate payables3,681
 2,469
Accrued interest and taxes32,891
 28,574
Other current liabilities2,044
 2,271
Total current liabilities125,422
 75,217
Long-term Debt, net of Unamortized Premiums, Discounts, and Debt Issuance Costs361,411
 361,241
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities:   
Accumulated deferred income taxes232,791
 211,547
Regulatory liabilities32,550
 40,662
Asset retirement obligations695
 848
Accrued pension liability and postretirement benefit cost6,812
 7,888
Other deferred credits4,078
 7,349
Total deferred credits and other liabilities276,926
 268,294
Total liabilities763,759
 704,752
Commitments and Contingencies (See Note 16)

 

Common Stockholder’s Equity:   
Common stock ($10 par value; 12,000,000 shares authorized; issued and outstanding 6,358 shares)64
 64
Paid-in-capital404,166
 404,166
Retained earnings129,150
 120,435
Total common stockholder’s equity533,380
 524,665
 $1,297,139
 $1,229,417
The accompanying notes, as they relate to TNMP, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

B-B - 28



TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN COMMON STOCKHOLDER’S EQUITY
 
Common
Stock
 
Paid-in
Capital
 AOCI 
Retained
Earnings
 
Total
Common
Stockholder’s
Equity
     (In thousands)    
Balance at December 31, 2012$64
 $390,366
 $(216) $73,600
 $463,814
Net earnings
 
 
 29,090
 29,090
Total other comprehensive income (loss)
 
 (47) 
 (47)
Equity contribution from parent
 13,800
 
 
 13,800
Dividends declared on common stock
 
 
 (3,726) (3,726)
Balance at December 31, 201364
 404,166
 (263) 98,964
 502,931
Net earnings
 
 
 37,807
 37,807
Total other comprehensive income
 
 263
 
 263
Dividends declared on common stock
 
 
 (16,336) (16,336)
Balance at December 31, 201464
 404,166
 
 120,435
 524,665
Net earnings
 
 
 41,963
 41,963
Dividends declared on common stock
 
 
 (33,248) (33,248)
Balance at December 31, 2015$64
 $404,166
 $
 $129,150
 $533,380

The accompanying notes, as they relate to TNMP, are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

B- 29

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015



(1)Summary of the Business and Significant Accounting Policies
Nature of Business
PNMR is an investor-owned holding company of energy and energy-related businesses. PNMR’s primary subsidiaries are PNM and TNMP. PNM is a public utility with regulated operations primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. TNMP is a wholly ownedwholly-owned subsidiary of TNP, which is a holding company that is wholly ownedwholly-owned by PNMR. TNMP provides regulated transmission and distribution services in Texas. PNMR’s common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol PNM.
Financial Statement Preparation and Presentation
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could ultimately differ from those estimated.
The Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements include disclosures for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP. For discussion purposes, this report uses the term “Company” when discussing matters of common applicability to PNMR, PNM, and TNMP. Discussions regarding only PNMR, PNM, or TNMP are so indicated.
Certain amounts in the 20142016 and 20132015 Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto have been reclassified to conform to the 20152017 financial statement presentation.
GAAP defines subsequent events as events or transactions that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued or are available to be issued. Based on their nature, magnitude, and timing, certain subsequent events may be required to be reflected at the balance sheet date and/or required to be disclosed in the financial statements. The Company has evaluated subsequent events as required by GAAP.
Principles of Consolidation
The Consolidated Financial Statements of each of PNMR, PNM, and TNMP include their accounts and those of subsidiaries in which that entity owns a majority voting interest. PNM also consolidates Valencia (Note 9) and, through January 15, 2016, the PVNGS Capital Trust. PNM owns undivided interests in several jointly-owned power plants and records its pro-rata share of the assets, liabilities, and expenses for those plants. The agreements for the jointly-owned plants provide that if an owner were to default on its payment obligations, the non-defaulting owners would be responsible for their proportionate share of the obligations of the defaulting owner. In exchange, the non-defaulting owners would be entitled to their proportionate share of the generating capacity of the defaulting owner. There have been no such payment defaults under any of the agreements for the jointly-owned plants.
PNMR shared services’ administrative and general expenses, which represent costs that are primarily driven by corporate level activities, are charged to the business segments. These services are billed at cost. Other significant intercompany transactions between PNMR, PNM, and TNMP include interest and income tax sharing payments, as well as equity transactions. All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated. See Note 3.
 
Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation
The Company maintains its accounting records in accordance with the uniform system of accounts prescribed by FERC and adopted by the NMPRC and PUCT.
Certain of the Company’s operations are regulated by the NMPRC, PUCT, and FERC and the provisions of GAAP for rate-regulated enterprises are applied to the regulated operations. Regulators may assign costs to accounting periods that differ from accounting methods applied by non-regulated utilities.  When it is probable that regulators will permit recovery of costs through future rates, costs are deferred as regulatory assets that otherwise would be expensed.  Likewise, regulatory liabilities are recognized when it is probable that regulators will require refunds through future rates or when revenue is collected for expenditures that have not yet been incurred.  GAAP also provides for the recognition of revenue and regulatory assets and liabilities associated

B - 29

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

with “alternative revenue programs” authorized by regulators. Such programs allow the utility to adjust future rates in response to past activities or completed events, if certain criteria are met, even for programs that do not otherwise qualify for recognition of regulatory assets and liabilities. Regulatory assets and liabilities are amortized into earnings over the authorized recovery period. Accordingly, the Company has defe

B- 30

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

rreddeferred certain costs and recorded certain liabilities pursuant to the rate actions of the NMPRC, PUCT, and FERC. Information on regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities is contained in Note 4.
In some circumstances, regulators allow a requested increase in rates to be implemented, subject to refund, before the regulatory process has been completed and a decision rendered by the regulator. When this occurs, the Company assesses the possible outcomes of the rate proceeding. The Company records a provision for refund to the extent the amounts being collected, subject to refund, exceed the amount the Company determines is probable of ultimately being allowed by the regulator.

Competition Transition Charge
In connection with the adoption of Senate Bill 7 by the Texas Legislature in 1999 that deregulated electric utilities operating within ERCOT, TNMP was allowed to recover its stranded costs through the CTC and to recover a carrying charge on the CTC. The amounts yet to be collectcollected are recorded as regulatory assets by TNMP. TNMP’s calculation of allowable carrying charges on stranded costs recoverable from its transmission and distribution customers is based on a Texas Supreme Court ruling and the PUCT’s application of that ruling. TNMP estimates the CTC will be fully recovered in November 2020.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
Investments in highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less at the date of purchase are considered cash equivalents. See New Accounting Pronouncements below.
Utility Plant
Utility plant is stated at original cost, which includes capitalized payroll-related costs such as taxes, pension, and other fringe benefits, administrative costs, and AFUDC, where authorized by rate regulation.regulation, or capitalized interest.
Repairs, including major maintenance activities, and minor replacements of property are expensed when incurred, except as required by regulators for ratemaking purposes. Major replacements are charged to utility plant. Gains, or losses, and costs to remove resulting from retirements or other dispositions of regulated property in the normal course of business are credited or charged to accumulated depreciation.
PNM and TNMP may receive reimbursements, referred to as contributions in aid of construction (“CIAC”), from customers to pay for all or part of certain construction projects to extent that project does not benefit regulated customers in general. PNM and TNMP account for these reimbursements as offsets to utility plant additions based on the requirements of the NMPRC, FERC, and PUCT. Due to the PUCT’s regulatory treatment of CIAC reimbursements, TNMP also receives a financing component that is recognized as other income on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. Under the NMPRC regulatory treatment, PNM does not receive a financing component.
Depreciation and Amortization
PNM’s provision for depreciation and amortization of utility plant, other than nuclear fuel, is based upon composite straight-line rates approved by the NMPRC.NMPRC and FERC. Amortization of nuclear fuel is based on units-of-production. TNMP’s provision for depreciation and amortization of utility plant is based upon straight-line rates approved by the PUCT. Depreciation of non-utility property is computed based on the straight-line method. The provision for depreciation of certain equipment is allocated between operating expenses and construction projects based on the use of the equipment. Average straight-line rates used were as follows:
Year ended December 31Year ended December 31
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
PNM          
Electric plant2.27% 2.26% 2.27%2.52% 2.33% 2.27%
Common, intangible, and general plant4.66% 4.64% 4.87%8.36% 5.40% 4.66%
TNMP3.94% 3.59% 3.66%3.57% 3.66% 3.65%
Allowance for Funds Used During Construction
As provided by the FERC uniform systems of accounts, AFUDC is charged to regulated utility plant for construction projects. This allowance is a non-cash item designed to enable a utility to capitalize financing costs during periods of construction of property subject to rate regulation. It represents the cost of borrowed funds (allowance for borrowed funds used during construction) and a return on other funds (allowance for equity funds used during construction). The allowance for borrowed funds used during construction is recorded in interest charges and the allowance for equity funds used during construction is recorded in other income on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings.

B- 31B - 30

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

Allowance for Funds Used During Construction
As provided by the FERC uniform systems of accounts, AFUDC is charged to regulated utility plant for construction projects. This allowance is designed to enable a utility to capitalize financing costs during periods of construction of property subject to rate regulation. It represents the cost of borrowed funds (allowance for borrowed funds used during construction or “debt AFUDC”) and a return on other funds (allowance for equity funds used during construction or “equity AFUDC”). The debt AFUDC is recorded in interest charges and the equity AFUDC is recorded in other income on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings.
For the years ended December 31, 20152017, 20142016, and 20132015, PNM recorded $7.86.3 million, $4.25.3 million, and $3.37.8 million of allowance for borrowed funds used during constructiondebt AFUDC and $8.7 million, $4.2 million, and $10.4 million $5.6 million, and $4.4 million of allowance for equity funds used during construction.AFUDC. TNMP recorded $0.51.2 million, $0.50.9 million, and $0.40.5 million of allowance for borrowed funds used during constructiondebt AFUDC and zero, zero,$0.9 million, $0.8 million, and zero of allowance for equity funds used during construction.AFUDC.
Capitalized Interest
The Company capitalizes interest on its construction projects and major computer software projects not subject to the computation of AFUDC. Capitalized interest is recorded in interest charges. Interest was capitalized at the overall weighted average borrowing rate of 6.6%5.9%, 6.6%6.1%, and 6.9%6.6% for 20152017, 20142016, and 20132015. In 20152017, 20142016, and 20132015, capitalized interest was $1.51.3 million, $1.61.8 million, and $1.5 million for PNMR consolidated; $0.80.6 million, $1.10.8 million, and $1.10.8 million for PNM; and less than $0.1 million, $0.1 million, and zero$0.1 million for TNMP. 
Materials, Supplies, and Fuel Stock
Materials and supplies relate to transmission, distribution, and generating assets. Materials and supplies are charged to inventory when purchased and are expensed or capitalized as appropriate when issued. Materials and supplies are valued using an average costing method. Coal is valued using a rolling weighted average costing method that is updated based on the current period cost per ton. Periodic aerial surveys are performed on the coal piles and adjustments are made. Average cost is equal to net realizable value under the ratemaking process.
Inventories consisted of the following at December 31:
PNMR PNM TNMPPNMR PNM TNMP
2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 20142017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2016
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Coal$18,356
 $17,525
 $18,356
 $17,525
 $
 $
$16,714
 $19,940
 $16,714
 $19,940
 $
 $
Materials and supplies49,030
 46,103
 42,121
 43,334
 6,909
 2,769
49,788
 53,087
 44,145
 44,461
 5,643
 8,626
$67,386
 $63,628
 $60,477
 $60,859
 $6,909
 $2,769
$66,502
 $73,027
 $60,859
 $64,401
 $5,643
 $8,626

Investments
In 1985 and 1986, PNM entered into eleven operating leases for interests in certain PVNGS generation facilities (Note 7). The 10.3% and 10.15% lessor notes that were issued by the owners of the assets subject to these leases were subsequently purchased and held by the PVNGS Capital Trust, which was consolidated by PNM. The PVNGS Capital Trust held certain of the lessor notes to their maturities in January 2015 and January 2016. Upon final maturity of the lessor notes, the PVNGS Capital Trust ceased to exist. The PVNGS lessor notes were carried at amortized cost.
PNM holds investment securities in the NDT for the purpose of funding its share of the decommissioning costs of PVNGS and a trusttrusts for PNM’s share of post-termfinal reclamation costs related to the coal mines serving SJGS and Four Corners (Note 16). All of these investments are classified as available-for-sale. PNM evaluates the securities for impairment on an on-going basis. Since third party investment managers have sole discretion over the purchase and sales of the securities, PNM records a realized loss as an impairment for any security that has a market value that is less than cost at the end of each quarter. For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014,2017, 2016, and 2013,2015, PNM recorded impairment losses on the available-for-sale securities held in the NDT and coal mine reclamation trusttrusts of $10.4$7.1 million,, $4.8 $13.9 million,, and $3.5 million.$10.4 million. No gains or losses are deferred as regulatory assets or liabilities. UnrealizedThrough December 31, 2017, unrealized gains on these investments, net of related tax effects, are included in OCI and AOCI. The available-for-sale securities are primarily comprised of international, United States, state, and municipal government obligations and corporate debt and equity securities. All investments are held in PNM’s name and are in the custody of major financial institutions. The specific identification method is used to determine the cost of securities disposed of, with realized gains and losses reflected in other income and deductions.
Goodwill
Under GAAP, the Company does not amortize goodwill. Goodwill is evaluated for impairment annually, or more frequently if events and circumstances indicate that the goodwill might be impaired. See Note 19.

B- 32B - 31

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

of major financial institutions. The specific identification method is used to determine the cost of securities disposed of, with realized gains and losses reflected in other income and deductions. See New Accounting Pronouncements below.

Investment in NM Renewable Development, LLC

On September 22, 2017, PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners created NMRD to pursue the acquisition, development, and ownership of renewable energy generation projects, primarily in the state of New Mexico. PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners each have a 50% ownership interest in NMRD. In December 2017, PNMR Development made a contribution to NMRD of its interest in three 10 MW solar facilities it was constructing and assigned its interests in several agreements related to those facilities to NMRD. The facilities had a book value of $24.8 million, which approximated fair value at that time. AEP OnSite Partners made a cash contribution to NMRD equal to 50% of the value of the 30 MW solar capacity, amounting to $12.4 million, which cash was then distributed from NMRD to PNMR Development. During 2017, PNMR Development and AEP OnSite Partners each made cash contributions of $4.1 million to NMRD for its construction activities. At December 31, 2017, NMRD’s renewable energy capacity under contract is 31.8 MW, which includes 11.8 MW of solar PV facilities in operation, consisting of 10 MW required to supply energy to a new data center in PNM’s service territory (Note 17) and 1.8 MW to supply energy to Columbus Electric Cooperative located in southwest New Mexico, and 20 MW of solar PV under construction. PNMR accounts for its investment in NMRD using the equity method of accounting because PNMR’s ownership interest results in significant influence, but not control, over NMRD and its operations.  PNMR records as income its percentage share of earnings or loss of NMRD and carries its investment at cost, adjusted for its share of undistributed earnings or losses.

For the year ended December 31, 2017, NMRD revenues, expenses, and net income were each less than $0.1 million. At December 31, 2017, NMRD had $6.0 million in cash, $30.9 million of property, plant, and equipment, $3.9 million in accounts payable, and $33.0 million of owners’ equity. NMRD anticipates it will complete the remaining 20 MW of solar PV facilities under construction by mid-2018, which is anticipated to be funded by additional equity contributions.
Goodwill
Under GAAP, the Company does not amortize goodwill. Goodwill is evaluated for impairment annually, or more frequently if events and circumstances indicate that the goodwill might be impaired. See Note 18.
Asset Impairment
Tangible long-lived assets are evaluated in relation to the estimated future undiscounted cash flows to assess recoverability when events and circumstances indicate that the assets might be impaired.
Revenue Recognition
Electric operating revenues are recorded in the period of energy delivery, which includes estimated amounts for service rendered but unbilled at the end of each accounting period. The determination of the energy sales billed to individual customers is based on the reading of their meters, which occurs on a systematic basis throughout the month. At the end of each month, amounts of energy delivered to customers since the date of the last meter reading and the corresponding unbilled revenue are estimated. Unbilled electric revenue is estimated based on the daily generation volumes, estimated customer usage by class, weather factors, line losses, and applicable customer rates reflecting historical trends and experience.
PNM’s wholesale electricity sales are recorded as electric operating revenues and the wholesale electricity purchases are recorded as costs of energy sold. In accordance with GAAP, derivative contracts that are net settled or “booked-out”subject to unplanned netting are recorded net in earnings. A book-out“book-out” is the planned or unplanned netting of off-setting purchase and sale transactions. A book-out is a transmission mechanism to reduce congestion on the transmission system or administrative burden. For accounting purposes, a book-out is the recording of net revenues upon the settlement of a derivative contract.
Unrealized gains and losses on contracts that do not qualify for the normal purchases or normal sales exception or are not designated for hedge accounting are classified as economic hedges. Economic hedges are defined as derivative instruments, including long-term power and fuel supply agreements, used to hedge generation assets and purchased power costs. Changes in the fair value of economic hedges are reflected in results of operations, with changes related to economic hedges on sales included in operating revenues and changes related to economic hedges on purchases included in cost of energy sold.

B - 32

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

See New Accounting Pronouncements below.
Accounts Receivable and Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts
Accounts receivable consists primarily of trade receivables from customers. In the normal course of business, credit is extended to customers on a short-term basis. The Company calculates the allowance for uncollectible accounts based on historical experience and estimated default rates. The accounts receivable balances are reviewed monthly and adjustments to the allowance for uncollectible accounts and bad debt expense are made as necessary. Amounts that are deemed uncollectible are written off.
Amortization of Debt Acquisition Costs
Discount, premium, and expense related to the issuance of long-term debt are amortized over the lives of the respective issues. Gains and losses incurred upon the early retirement of long-term debt are recognized in other income or other deductions, except for amounts attributable torecoverable through NMPRC, FERC, or PUCT regulation, which are recorded as regulatory assets or liabilities and amortized over the lives of the respective issues. See Note 6 for information regardingUnamortized debt premium, discount, and expense related to long-term are reflected as part of the adoption of a new accounting standard that requires a change in presentation of unamortized debt issuance costsliabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Derivatives
The Company records derivative instruments, including energy contracts, other than those designated as normal purchases or normal sales, inon the balance sheet as either an asset or liability measured at their fair value. GAAP requires that changes in the derivatives’ fair value be recognized currently in earnings unless specific hedge accounting or normal purchase or normal sale criteria are met. Normal purchases and normal sales are not marked to market and are reflected in results of operations when the underlying transactions settle. For qualifying hedges, an entity must formally document, designate, and assess the effectiveness of transactions that receive hedge accounting. GAAP provides that the effective portion of the gain or loss on a derivative instrument designated and qualifying as a cash flow hedging instrument be reported as a component of AOCI and be reclassified into earnings in the period during which the hedged forecasted transaction affects earnings. The results of hedge ineffectiveness and the portion of the change in fair value of a derivative that an entity has chosen to exclude from hedge effectiveness are required to be presented in current earnings. See Note 6 and Note 8.
The Company treats all forward commodity purchases and sales contracts subject to unplanned netting or book-out by the transmission provider as derivative instruments subject to mark-to-market accounting, unless the contract qualifies for the normal

B- 33

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

exception by meeting the definition of a capacity contract. Under this definition, the contract cannot permit net settlement, the seller must have the resources to serve the contract, and the buyer must be a load serving entity.accounting. GAAP provides guidance on whether realized gains and losses on derivative contracts not held for trading purposes should be reported on a net or gross basis and concludes such classification is a matter of judgment that depends on the relevant facts and circumstances.
Decommissioning and Reclamation Costs
PNM owns and leases nuclear and fossil-fuel generating facilities. In accordance with GAAP, PNM is only required to recognize and measure decommissioning liabilities for tangible long-lived assets for which a legal obligation exists. Nuclear decommissioning costs and related accruals are based on periodic site-specific estimates of the costs for removing all radioactive and other structures at PVNGS and are dependent upon numerous assumptions, including estimates of future decommissioning costs at current price levels, inflation rates, and discount rates. PNM’s accruals for PVNGS Units 1, 2, and 3, including portions held under leases, have been made based on such estimates, the guidelines of the NRC, and the extended PVNGS license periods. PVNGS Units 1 and 2 are included in PNM’s retail rates whileand PVNGS Unit 3 was excluded through December 31, 2017, but is currently excluded. PNM collects a provision for ultimate decommissioning of PVNGS Units 1 and 2 and its fossil-fueled generation facilitiesincluded beginning in its rates and recognizes a corresponding expense and liability for these amounts.2018. See Note 15 and Note 16. See Note 17 for information concerning the treatment of nuclear decommissioning for the leased portions of PVNGS in the NMPRC’s order in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and PNM’s appeal of that order.
In connection with both the SJGS coal agreement and the Four Corners fuel agreement,coal supply agreements, the owners are required to reimburse the mining companies for the cost of contemporaneous reclamation, as well as the costs for final reclamation of the coal mines. The reclamation costs are based on periodic site-specific studies that estimate the costs to be incurred in the future and are dependent upon numerous assumptions, including estimates of future reclamation costs at current price levels, inflation rates, and discount rates. PNM considers the contemporaneous reclamation costs part of the cost of its delivered coal costs. See Note 16 for a discussion of the final reclamation costs.
Environmental Costs
The normal operations of the Company involve activities and substances that expose the Company to potential liabilities under laws and regulations protecting the environment. Liabilities under these laws and regulations can be material and in some

B - 33

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

instances may be imposed without regard to fault, or may be imposed for past acts, even though the past acts may have been lawful at the time they occurred.
The Company records its environmental liabilities when site assessments or remedial actions are probable and a range of reasonably likely cleanup costs can be estimated. The Company reviews its sites and measures the liability by assessing a range of reasonably likely costs for each identified site using currently available information and the probable level of involvement and financial condition of other potentially responsible parties. These estimates are based on assumptions regarding the costs for site investigations, remediation, operations and maintenance, monitoring, and site closure. The ultimate cost to clean up the Company’s identified sites may vary from its recorded liability due to numerous uncertainties inherent in the estimation process. Amounts recorded for environmental expense in the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014,2017, 2016, and 2013,2015, as well as the amounts of environmental liabilities at December 31, 20152017 and 20142016 were insignificant.
Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits
See Note 12 for a discussion of pension and postretirement benefits expense, including a discussion of the actuarial assumptions.
Stock-Based Compensation
See Note 13 for a discussion of stock-based compensation expense.
Income Taxes
Income taxes are recognized using the asset and liability method of accounting for income taxes. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the estimated future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying value of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax basis. In accordance with GAAP, all deferred taxes are reflected as non-current on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Current NMPRC, FERC, and PUCT approved rates include the tax effects of the majority of these differences. GAAP requires that rate-regulated enterprises record deferred income taxes for temporary differences accorded flow-through treatment at the direction of a regulatory commission. The resulting deferred

B- 34

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

tax assets and liabilities are recorded atbased on the expected cash flow to be reflected in future rates. Because the NMPRC, FERC, and the PUCT have consistently permitted the recovery of tax effects previously flowed-through earnings, the Company has established regulatory liabilities and assets offsetting such deferred tax assets and liabilities. The Company recognizes only the impact of tax positions that, based on their merits, are more likely than not to be sustained upon an IRS audit. The Company defers investment tax credits related to rate regulated assets and amortizes them over the estimated useful lives of those assets. See Note 11.11 for additional information, including a discussion of the impacts of tax reform under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted on December 22, 2017.

The Company makes an estimate of its anticipated effective tax rate for the year as of the end of each quarterly period within its fiscal year. In interim periods, income tax expense is calculated by applying the anticipated annual effective tax rate to year-to-date earnings before taxes, which includes the earnings attributable to the Valencia non-controlling interest. GAAP also provides that certain unusual or infrequently occurring items, as well as adjustments due to enactment of new tax laws, be excluded from the estimated annual effective tax rate calculation.

Excise Taxes

The Company pays certain fees or taxes which are either considered to be an excise tax or similar to an excise tax. Substantially all of these taxes are recorded on a net basis in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings.

New Accounting Pronouncements

Information concerning recently issued accounting pronouncements that have not been adopted by the Company is presented below. The Company does not expect difficulty in adopting these standards by their required effective dates.


B - 34

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

Accounting Standards Update 2014-09 Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)
On
In May 28, 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09. The core principle of the guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. ASU 2014-09 also revises the disclosure requirements regarding revenue. Since the issuance of ASU 2014-09, the FASB issued a one-year deferral of the effective date and has issued additional ASUs that clarify implementation guidance regarding principal versus agent considerations, licensing, and identifying performance obligations, as well as adding certain additional practical expedients. The new standard will replace most existing revenue recognition guidance in GAAP when it becomes effective. On August 12, 2015,GAAP. ASU 2014-09 can be applied retrospectively to each prior period presented or on a modified retrospective basis with a cumulative effect adjustment to retained earnings on the FASB issued a one-year deferral in the effective date.date of adoption. The Company must nowwill adopt the new standard beginning onASU 2014-09 effective as of January 1, 2018. Early adoption would be permitted beginning January 1, 2017. The standard permits2018, its required effective date, using the usemodified retrospective method of either the retrospective or cumulative effect transition method. adoption.
The Company has not yet selected a transition method although it is unlikelymonitored the Company would elect to early adopt the new standard. The Company is analyzing the impacts this new standard will have on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures, but has not determined the effectactivities of the standard on its ongoing financial reporting.

Accounting Standards Update 2014-15 Presentation of Financial Statements Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s AbilityFASB and other non-authoritative groups regarding certain issues specific to Continue as a Going Concern

On August 27, 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, which requires management to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about a company’s ability to continue as a going concern in connection with the preparation of financial statements for each annualpower and interim reporting period. Disclosure requirements associated with management’s evaluation are also outlined in the new guidance. The new standard is effective for the Company for reporting periods ending after December 15, 2016, with early adoption permitted. The Company is in the process of analyzingutility industry. These specific issues include the impacts of thisthe new standard.guidance on accounting for CIAC and the presentation of revenues associated with “alternative revenue programs,” which primarily result from certain of the Company’s approved rate rider programs. The appropriate authoritative accounting organization has given tentative approval of the utility industry’s positions on all power and utility specific issues. The Company has substantially completed its assessment of ASU 2014-09 and does not anticipate a cumulative effect adjustment on the date of adoption or changes to the amount and timing of its current revenue recognition practices. The Company believes its existing policies, processes, information technology infrastructure, and internal controls properly capture and report revenue in accordance with ASU 2014-09.

Accounting Standards Update 2016-01 Financial Instruments (Subtopic 825-10):Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities

OnIn January 5, 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, which makes targeted improvements to GAAP regarding financial instruments. The new standardASU 2016-01 eliminates the requirement to classify investments in equity securities with readily determinable fair values into trading or available-for-sale categories and now requires those equity securities to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net incomeearnings rather than in OCI. The new standardUnrealized gains, net of income taxes, recorded in AOCI related to equity securities will be reclassified to retained earnings as a cumulative effect adjustment. ASU 2016-01 also revises certain presentation and disclosure requirements. Under the new standard,ASU 2016-01, accounting for investments in debt securities remains essentially unchanged.

PNM currently classifies all investments held in the NDT and coal mine reclamation trusts as available-for-sale securities. Unrealized losses on these securities are recorded immediately through earnings and unrealized gains are recorded in AOCI until the securities are sold. The new standardCompany will adopt ASU 2016-01 effective as of January 1, 2018, its required effective date. On January 1, 2018, PNMR and PNM will record a cumulative effect adjustment, net of income taxes, to increase retained earnings by $11.1 million with an offset to AOCI. Future changes in the fair value of equity securities will be effective for the Company beginning on January 1, 2018. Early adoption of the standard is permitted. The Company isrecorded in the process of analyzing the impacts of this new standard.earnings.


B- 35

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

Accounting Standards Update 2016-02 Leases (Topic 842)

OnIn February 25, 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02 which will change how lessees account forto provide guidance on the recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure of leases. The ASU 2016-02 will require that a liability be recorded on the balance sheet for all leases, based on the present value of future lease obligations. A corresponding right-of-use asset will also be recorded. Amortization of the lease obligation and the right-of-use asset for certain leases, primarily those currently classified as operating leases, will be on a straight-line basis, which is not expected to have a significant impact on the statements of earnings, or cash flows, whereas other leases will be required to be accounted for as financing arrangements similar to the accounting treatment for capital leases under current GAAP. The new standardASU 2016-02 also revises certain disclosure requirements. The new standard will be effective for the Company beginning on January 1, 2019. Early adoption of the standard is permitted. At adoption, of the ASU 2016-02 requires that leases will be recognized and measured as of the earliest period presented using a modified retrospective approach. Since thisapproach with all periods presented being restated and presented under the new guidance. The ASU was only recently issued,allows entities to apply certain practical expedients to arrangements that exist upon adoption or expired during the periods presented.

As further discussed in Note 7, the Company has operating leases of office buildings, vehicles, and equipment. The Company also routinely enters into land easements and right-of-way agreements. PNM also has operating lease interests in PVNGS Units 1 and 2 that will expire in January 2023 and 2024.


B - 35

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

The Company, along with others in the utility industry, is continuing to monitor the activities of the FASB and other non-authoritative groups regarding industry specific issues for further clarification. The Company has formed a project team, conducted outreach activities across its lines of business, and made significant progress in identifying arrangements, in addition to its existing operating lease arrangements, that may be classified as leases under ASU 2016-02. It is likely the arrangements currently classified as leases will continue to be recognized as leases under ASU 2016-02. It is possible that other contractual arrangements not yet begunpreviously meeting the lease definition may contain elements that qualify as leases and that previously identified operating leases may be classified as financing leases under ASU 2016-02. The Company is in the process of analyzing each of the identified contractual arrangement to determine if it contains lease elements under the new standard and quantifying the potential impacts of identified lease arrangements. The Company is also evaluating the practical expedients, if any, it will elect upon adoption. The Company anticipates this process will continue into 2018. The Company will adopt this standard effective as of January 1, 2019, its required effective date.

In January 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-01, which clarifies that land easements are to be evaluated under ASU 2016-02, but provides an additional optional practical expedient to not evaluate existing or expired land easements that were not accounted for as leases under the current guidance. The Company has numerous land easements and right-of-way agreements that would fall under this clarification. The only such agreement that has been accounted for as a lease under current guidance is the right-of-way agreement with the Navajo Nation (Note 7). The Company anticipates it will elect to use the practical expedient for its existing and expired land easements upon adoption of ASU 2016-02.

Accounting Standards Update 2016-13 Financial Instruments Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, which changes the way entities recognize impairment of many financial assets, including accounts receivable and investments in debt securities, by requiring immediate recognition of estimated credit losses expected to occur over the remaining lives of the assets. The Company anticipates adopting ASU 2016-13 effective as of January 1, 2020 although early adoption is permitted beginning on January 1, 2019. The Company is in the process of analyzing the impacts of this new standard, but does not anticipate it will have a significant impact on its financial statements.

Accounting Standards Update 2016-18 Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Restricted Cash

In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-18, which requires that amounts generally described as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents be included with cash and cash equivalents when reconciling the beginning of period and end of period amounts shown on the statements of cash flows and adds disclosures necessary to reconcile such amounts to cash and cash equivalents on the balance sheets. ASU 2016-18 does not provide a definition of what should be considered restricted cash. Upon adoption, ASU 2016-18 requires the use of a retrospective transition method for each period presented. The Company has substantially completed its analysis of ASU 2016-18 and will adopt the standard effective as of January 1, 2018, its required effective date. During 2015, PNM received a deposit of $8.2 million from a third party that was restricted for PNM’s construction of transmission interconnection facilities for that party. PNM recorded the deposit in Other deferred charges and it was not included in cash on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Construction of the interconnection was completed in 2018, at which time $7.1 million was refunded to the third party. Other amounts considered to be restricted cash under ASU 2016-18 were insignificant. In 2018, PNM will reclassify amounts related to restricted cash on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows in accordance with ASU 2016-18 and provide the required additional disclosures.

Accounting Standards Update 2017-04 Intangibles Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-04 to simplify the annual goodwill impairment assessment process. Currently, the first step of a quantitative impairment test requires an entity to compare the fair value of each reporting unit containing goodwill with its carrying value (including goodwill). If as a result of this analysis, the entity concludes there is an indication of impairment in a reporting unit having goodwill, the entity is required to perform the second step of the impairment analysis, determining the amount of goodwill impairment to be recorded. The amount is calculated by comparing the implied fair value of the goodwill to its carrying amount. This exercise requires the entity to allocate the fair value determined in step one to the individual assets and liabilities of the reporting unit. Any remaining fair value would be the implied fair value of goodwill on the testing date. To the extent the recorded amount of goodwill of a reporting unit exceeds the implied fair value determined in step two, an impairment loss would be reflected in results of operations. ASU 2017-04 eliminates the second step of the impairment analysis. Accordingly,

B - 36

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

if the first step of a quantitative goodwill impairment analysis performed after adoption of ASU 2017-04 indicates that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying value, the goodwill of that reporting unit would be impaired to the extent of that difference. The Company anticipates it will adopt ASU 2017-04 for impairment testing after January 1, 2020, its required effective date, although early adoption is permitted. However, if there is an indication of potential impairment of goodwill as a result of an impairment assessment prior to 2020, the Company will evaluate the impact of ASU 2017-04 and could elect to early adopt this standard.

Accounting Standards Update 2017-07 Compensation Retirement Benefits (Topic 715): Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost

In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-07 to improve the presentation of net periodic pension and other postretirement benefit costs. Currently, the Company presents all of its net periodic benefit costs, net of amounts capitalized to construction and other accounts, as administrative and general expenses on its statements of earnings. The amendments in ASU 2017-07 require the service cost component of net benefit costs be presented in the same line item or items as employees’ compensation. The other components of net benefit cost (the “non-service cost components”) are required to be presented in the income statement separately from the service cost component and outside of operating income with disclosures identifying where the non-service cost components have been presented. ASU 2017-07 also limits capitalization to only the service cost component of benefit costs. PNMR and its subsidiaries maintain qualified defined benefit pension and OPEB plans. Currently, net periodic benefit cost for the Company’s defined benefit pension plans do not include a service cost component and there is only a minor amount of service cost for the OPEB plans. Additional information about the Company’s benefit plans is discussed in Note 12. ASU 2017-07 requires retrospective presentation of the service and non-service cost components of net benefit costs in the income statement and prospective application regarding the capitalization of only the service cost component of net benefit costs. The Company will adopt the standard effective as of January 1, 2018, its required effective date. In 2017 and 2016, PNM recorded pre-tax Administrative and general expenses of $4.7 million and $3.0 million and TNMP recorded less than $0.1 million and less than $0.1 million related to their non-service cost components of net periodic benefit costs. Beginning in 2018, such costs will be reclassified to Other (deductions) on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. The Company believes PNM and TNMP can continue to capitalize the non-service cost components of net benefit costs as regulatory assets to the extent attributable to regulated operations and does not anticipate ASU 2017-07 will have a significant impact on its financial statements.
 
Accounting Standards Update 2017-12 Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities

In August 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-12 to better align hedge accounting with an organization’s risk management activities and to simplify the application of hedge accounting guidance. ASU 2017-12 is effective for the Company on January 1, 2019 although early adoption is permitted beginning on January 1, 2018. As discussed in Note 6, the Company periodically enters into, and designates as cash flow hedges, interest rate swaps to hedge its exposure to changes in interest rates. In addition, as discussed in Note 8, the Company enters into various derivative instruments to economically hedge the risk of changes in commodity prices, which are not currently designated as cash flow hedges. The Company is evaluating the requirements of ASU 2017-12, but does not anticipate the changes will have a significant impact on the Company’s accounting treatment for derivative instruments or on its financial statements.

(2)Segment Information
The following segment presentation is based on the methodology that management uses for making operating decisions and assessing performance of its various business activities. A reconciliation of the segment presentation to the GAAP financial statements is provided.
PNM
PNM includes the retail electric utility operations of PNM that are subject to traditional rate regulation by the NMPRC. PNM provides integrated electricity services that include the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity for retail electric customers in New Mexico. PNM also includes the generation and sale of electricity into the wholesale market, as well as providing transmission services to third parties. The sale of electricity includes the asset optimization of PNM’s jurisdictional assets as well as the capacity excluded from retail rates. FERC has jurisdiction over wholesale and transmission rates.
TNMP
TNMP is an electric utility providing regulated transmission and distribution services in Texas under the TECA. TNMP’s operations are subject to traditional rate regulation by the PUCT.
Corporate and Other
The Corporate and Other segment includes PNMR holding company activities, primarily related to corporate level debt and PNMR Services Company.

The following tables present summarized financial information for PNMR by segment. PNM and TNMP each operate in only one segment. Therefore, tabular segment information is not presented for PNM and TNMP.

B- 36B - 37

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

TNMP
TNMP is an electric utility providing services in Texas under the TECA. TNMP’s operations are subject to traditional rate regulation by the PUCT. TNMP provides transmission and distribution services at regulated rates to various REPs that, in turn, provide retail electric service to consumers within TNMP’s service area.
Corporate and Other
The Corporate and Other segment includes PNMR holding company activities, primarily related to corporate level debt and PNMR Services Company. The activities of PNMR Development and NM Capital are also included in Corporate and Other.
PNMR SEGMENT INFORMATION

The following tables present summarized financial information for PNMR by segment. PNM and TNMP each operate in only one segment. Therefore, tabular segment information is not presented for PNM and TNMP.
 
2015PNM TNMP 
Corporate
and Other
 Consolidated
 (In thousands)
Electric operating revenues$1,131,195
 $307,887
 $
 $1,439,082
Cost of energy391,131
 73,518
 
 464,649
Margin740,064
 234,369
 
 974,433
Other operating expenses590,967
 88,051
 (14,854) 664,164
Depreciation and amortization115,717
 56,285
 13,917
 185,919
Operating income33,380
 90,033
 937
 124,350
Interest income6,574
 
 (76) 6,498
Other income (deductions)26,914
 3,736
 (485) 30,165
Interest charges(79,950) (27,681) (7,229) (114,860)
Segment earnings (loss) before income taxes(13,082) 66,088
 (6,853) 46,153
Income taxes (benefit)(12,758) 24,125
 3,708
 15,075
Segment earnings (loss)(324) 41,963
 (10,561) 31,078
Valencia non-controlling interest(14,910) 
 
 (14,910)
Subsidiary preferred stock dividends(528) 
 
 (528)
Segment earnings (loss) attributable to PNMR$(15,762) $41,963
 $(10,561) $15,640
        
At December 31, 2015:       
Total Assets$4,599,344
 $1,297,139
 $112,845
 $6,009,328
Goodwill$51,632
 $226,665
 $
 $278,297

B- 37

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

2014PNM TNMP 
Corporate
and Other
 Consolidated
2017PNM TNMP 
Corporate
and Other
 PNMR Consolidated
       (In thousands)
Electric operating revenues$1,147,914
 $287,939
 $
 $1,435,853
$1,104,230
 $340,773
 $
 $1,445,003
Cost of energy403,626
 67,930
 
 471,556
321,677
 85,802
 
 407,479
Margin744,288
 220,009
 
 964,297
Utility margin782,553
 254,971
 
 1,037,524
Other operating expenses422,051
 84,365
 (14,450) 491,966
423,011
 98,221
 (22,135) 499,097
Depreciation and amortization109,524
 50,056
 13,054
 172,634
147,017
 63,146
 21,779
 231,942
Operating income212,713
 85,588
 1,396
 299,697
212,525
 93,604
 356
 306,485
Interest income8,557
 
 (74) 8,483
8,454
 
 7,462
 15,916
Other income (deductions)12,258
 2,138
 (2,302) 12,094
30,686
 3,551
 (3,254) 30,983
Interest charges(79,442) (27,396) (12,789) (119,627)(82,697) (30,084) (14,844) (127,625)
Segment earnings (loss) before income taxes154,086
 60,330
 (13,769) 200,647
168,968
 67,071
 (10,280) 225,759
Income taxes (benefit)52,633
 22,523
 (5,418) 69,738
Income taxes81,555
 31,512
 17,273
 130,340
Segment earnings (loss)101,453
 37,807
 (8,351) 130,909
87,413
 35,559
 (27,553) 95,419
Valencia non-controlling interest(14,127) 
 
 (14,127)(15,017) 
 
 (15,017)
Subsidiary preferred stock dividends(528) 
 
 (528)(528) 
 
 (528)
Segment earnings (loss) attributable to PNMR$86,798
 $37,807
 $(8,351) $116,254
$71,868
 $35,559
 $(27,553) $79,874
              
At December 31, 2014:       
At December 31, 2017:       
Total Assets$4,453,114
 $1,229,417
 $107,706
 $5,790,237
$4,921,563
 $1,500,770
 $223,770
 $6,646,103
Goodwill$51,632
 $226,665
 $
 $278,297
$51,632
 $226,665
 $
 $278,297

2013PNM TNMP 
Corporate
and Other
 Consolidated
        
Electric operating revenues$1,116,312
 $271,611
 $
 $1,387,923
Cost of energy374,710
 57,606
 
 432,316
Margin741,602
 214,005
 
 955,607
Other operating expenses428,591
 91,601
 (18,308) 501,884
Depreciation and amortization103,826
 50,219
 12,836
 166,881
Operating income209,185
 72,185
 5,472
 286,842
Interest income10,182
 
 (139) 10,043
Other income (deductions)11,288
 1,919
 (13,575) (368)
Interest charges(79,175) (27,393) (14,880) (121,448)
Segment earnings (loss) before income taxes151,480
 46,711
 (23,122) 175,069
Income taxes (benefit)48,804
 17,621
 (6,912) 59,513
Segment earnings (loss)102,676
 29,090
 (16,210) 115,556
Valencia non-controlling interest(14,521) 
 
 (14,521)
Subsidiary preferred stock dividends(528) 
 
 (528)
Segment earnings (loss) attributable to PNMR$87,627
 $29,090
 $(16,210) $100,507
        
At December 31, 2013:       
Total Assets$4,174,261
 $1,151,327
 $101,270
 $5,426,858
Goodwill$51,632
 $226,665
 $
 $278,297

B-B - 38

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

2016PNM TNMP 
Corporate
and Other
 PNMR Consolidated
        
Electric operating revenues$1,035,913
 $327,038
 $
 $1,362,951
Cost of energy299,714
 80,882
 
 380,596
Utility margin736,199
 246,156
 
 982,355
Other operating expenses414,662
 93,389
 (12,791) 495,260
Depreciation and amortization133,447
 61,126
 14,537
 209,110
Operating income (loss)188,090
 91,641
 (1,746) 277,985
Interest income10,173
 
 12,120
 22,293
Other income (deductions)22,066
 3,202
 (1,739) 23,529
Interest charges(87,469) (29,335) (11,829) (128,633)
Segment earnings (loss) before income taxes132,860
 65,508
 (3,194) 195,174
Income taxes (benefit)40,922
 23,836
 (1,480) 63,278
Segment earnings (loss)91,938
 41,672
 (1,714) 131,896
Valencia non-controlling interest(14,519) 
 
 (14,519)
Subsidiary preferred stock dividends(528) 
 
 (528)
Segment earnings (loss) attributable to PNMR$76,891
 $41,672
 $(1,714) $116,849
        
At December 31, 2016:       
Total Assets$4,867,546
 $1,383,223
 $220,311
 $6,471,080
Goodwill$51,632
 $226,665
 $
 $278,297
2015PNM TNMP 
Corporate
and Other
 PNMR Consolidated
        
Electric operating revenues$1,131,195
 $307,887
 $
 $1,439,082
Cost of energy391,131
 73,518
 
 464,649
Utility margin740,064
 234,369
 
 974,433
Other operating expenses590,967
 88,051
 (14,854) 664,164
Depreciation and amortization115,717
 56,285
 13,917
 185,919
Operating income33,380
 90,033
 937
 124,350
Interest income6,574
 
 (76) 6,498
Other income (deductions)26,914
 3,736
 (485) 30,165
Interest charges(79,950) (27,681) (7,229) (114,860)
Segment earnings (loss) before income taxes(13,082) 66,088
 (6,853) 46,153
Income taxes (benefit)(12,758) 24,125
 3,708
 15,075
Segment earnings (loss)(324) 41,963
 (10,561) 31,078
Valencia non-controlling interest(14,910) 
 
 (14,910)
Subsidiary preferred stock dividends(528) 
 
 (528)
Segment earnings (loss) attributable to PNMR$(15,762) $41,963
 $(10,561) $15,640
        
At December 31, 2015:       
Total Assets$4,599,344
 $1,297,139
 $112,845
 $6,009,328
Goodwill$51,632
 $226,665
 $
 $278,297

The Company defines utility margin as electric operating revenues less cost of energy. Cost of energy consists primarily of fuel and purchase power costs for PNM and costs charged by third-party transmission providers for TNMP. The Company believes that utility margin provides a more meaningful basis for evaluating operations than electric operating revenues since substantially all such costs are offset in revenues as fuel and purchase power costs are passed through to customers under PNM’s FPPAC and third-party transmission costs are passed on to customers through TNMP’s transmission cost recovery factor. Utility margin is not a financial measure required to be presented under GAAP and is considered a non-GAAP measure.

B - 39

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

Major Customers

No individual customer accounted for more than 10% of the electric operating revenues of PNMR or PNM. Three customersREPs accounted for more than 10% of the electric operating revenues of TNMP, accounted for 16% in 2015, 15% in 2014, and 16% in 2013; 13% in 2015, 15% in 2014, and 17% in 2013; and 11% in 2015, 11% in 2014, and 10% in 2013 of TNMP’s electric operating revenues.as follows:
 Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
REP A16% 16% 16%
REP B11% 11% 13%
REP C10% 11% 11%
 
(3)Related Party Transactions
PNMR, PNM, and TNMP are considered related parties as defined under GAAP.GAAP, as is PNMR Services Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of PNMR that provides corporate services to PNMR and its subsidiaries in accordance with shared services agreements. These services are billed at cost on a monthly basis to the business units.
PNMR files a consolidated federal income tax return with its affiliated companies. A tax allocation agreement exists between PNMR and each of its affiliated companies. These agreements provide that the subsidiary company will compute its taxable income on a stand-alone basis. If the result is a net tax liability, such amount shall be paid to PNMR. If there are net operating losses and/or tax credits, the subsidiary shall receive payment for the tax savings from PNMR to the extent that PNMR is able to utilize those benefits.
 
See Note 6 for information on intercompany borrowing arrangements. The table below summarizes the nature and amount of related party transactions of PNMR, PNM and TNMP:     
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
  (In thousands)    (In thousands)  
Services billings:          
PNMR to PNM$90,827
 $86,871
 $92,597
$97,914
 $94,606
 $90,827
PNMR to TNMP28,109
 28,349
 28,937
31,095
 28,907
 28,109
PNM to TNMP554
 524
 562
382
 427
 554
TNMP to PNMR41
 31
 7
141
 66
 41
TNMP to PNM154
 172
 
Interest billings:     
PNMR to PNM21
 11
 54
PNM to PNMR220
 150
 110
PNMR to TNMP133
 132
 276
Income tax sharing payments:          
PNMR to TNMP
 
 

 
 
PNMR to PNM1,450
 
 77,433
23,391
 
 1,450
TNMP to PNMR
 
 3,643
20,686
 
 
Interest payments:     
PNM to PNMR54
 65
 4
TNMP to PNMR276
 309
 481
 
(4)    Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
The operations of PNM and TNMP are regulated by the NMPRC, PUCT, and FERC and the provisions of GAAP for rate-regulated enterprises are applied to its regulated operations. Regulatory assets represent probable future recovery of previously incurred costs that will be collected from customers through the ratemaking process. Regulatory liabilities represent probable future reductions in revenues associated with amounts that are to be credited to customers through the ratemaking process. Regulatory assets and liabilities reflected in the Consolidated Balance Sheets are presented below.

B- 39B - 40

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

 
PNM TNMPPNM TNMP
December 31, December 31,December 31, December 31,
2015 2014 2015 20142017 2016 2017 2016
Assets:(In thousands)(In thousands)
Current:              
FPPAC$
 $43,980
 $
 $
$363
 $1,451
 $
 $
Transmission cost recovery factor
 
 441
 2,482
Energy efficiency costs
 
 629
 1,393
1,776
 1,991
 794
 413

 43,980
 1,070
 3,875
2,139
 3,442
 794
 413
Non-Current:              
CTC, including carrying charges
 
 46,147
 55,292

 
 26,998
 36,328
Coal mine reclamation costs28,303
 34,224
 
 
16,462
 22,383
 
 
Deferred income taxes66,990
 63,645
 10,244
 10,556
59,220
 62,918
 9,621
 9,932
Loss on reacquired debt23,627
 25,439
 35,405
 36,703
22,744
 24,404
 32,808
 34,107
Pension and OPEB218,743
 222,545
 23,356
 23,803
222,774
 249,286
 26,153
 27,661
Shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3125,539
 
 
 
Hurricane recovery costs
 
 6,640
 
AMS surcharge
 
 1,673
 

 
 27,903
 14,669
AMS retirement costs
 
 8,549
 6,453

 
 8,948
 11,086
Renewable energy costs
 5,263
 
 
Other5,247
 5,929
 2,380
 1,155
12,500
 6,422
 2,362
 2,027
342,910
 357,045
 127,754
 133,962
459,239
 365,413
 141,433
 135,810
Total regulatory assets$342,910
 $401,025
 $128,824
 $137,837
$461,378
 $368,855
 $142,227
 $136,223
       
PNM TNMP
December 31, December 31,
2017 2016 2017 2016
Liabilities:       (In thousands)
Current:              
FPPAC$(11,410) $
 $
 $
Renewable energy rider$(779) $(3,411) $
 $
Other(4,181) (1,703) 
 
(5) (106) (1,525) (92)
(15,591) (1,703) 
 
(784) (3,517) (1,525) (92)
Non-Current:              
Cost of removal(284,015) (277,148) (26,859) (29,391)(256,493) (297,087) (26,541) (26,900)
Deferred income taxes(77,502) (75,941) (3,283) (3,923)(445,390) (62,920) (148,455) (2,644)
AROs(33,747) (35,834) 
 
PVNGS ARO(24,889) (30,621) 
 
Renewable energy tax benefits(23,697) (24,854) 
 
(21,383) (22,540) 
 
AMS surcharge
 
 
 (5,227)
Nuclear spent fuel reimbursements(9,214) (3,625) 
 
(5,518) (8,875) 
 
Pension and OPEB
 
 (1,913) (2,121)
 
 (3,442) (1,955)
Other(6,688) (8,079) (495) 
(768) (1,658) (699) (449)
(434,863) (425,481) (32,550) (40,662)(754,441) (423,701) (179,137) (31,948)
Total regulatory liabilities$(450,454) $(427,184) $(32,550) $(40,662)$(755,225) $(427,218) $(180,662) $(32,040)

The Company’s regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities are reflected in rates charged to customers or have been addressed in a regulatory proceeding. The Company does not receive or pay a rate of return on the following regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities (and their remaining amortization periods): coal mine reclamation costs (through 2020); deferred income taxes (over the remaining life of the taxable item, up to the remaining life of utility plant); pension and OPEB costs (through 2033); and AROsPVNGS ARO (to be determined in a future regulatory proceeding). In addition, TNMP does not currently receive a return on substantially all of its loss on reacquired debt (through 2043).

The Company is permitted, under rate regulation, to accrue and record a regulatory liability for the estimated cost of removal and salvage associated with certain of its assets through depreciation expense. Under GAAP, actuarial losses and prior service costs for pension plans are required to be recorded in AOCI; however, to the extent authorized for recovery through the regulatory process these amounts are recorded as regulatory assets or liabilities. Based on prior regulatory approvals, the amortization of these amounts will be included in the Company’s rates.


B- 40B - 41

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

regulatory process these amounts are recorded as regulatory assets or liabilities. Based on prior regulatory approvals, the amortization of these amounts will be included in the Company’s rates.

Based on a current evaluation of the various factors and conditions that are expected to impact future cost recovery, the Company believes that future recovery of its regulatory assets areis probable.

(5)Stockholders’ Equity
Common Stock and Equity Contributions
PNMR, PNM, and TNMP did not issue any common stock during the three year period ended December 31, 20152017. PNMR funded a cash equity contributioncontributions of $28.1 million in 2016 and $175.0 million in 2015 to PNM and $50.0 million in 20152017 and $13.8$50.0 million in 2016 to TNMP in 2013.TNMP. PNMR offers shares of PNMR common stock through the PNMR Direct Plan. PNMR utilizes shares of its common stock purchased on the open market, by an independent agent, rather than issuing additional shares to satisfy subscriptions under the PNMR Direct Plan. The shares of PNMR common stock utilized in the PNMR Direct Plan are offered under a SEC shelf registration statement that expires in August 2018.
Dividends on Common Stock
The declaration of common dividends by PNMR is dependent upon a number of factors, including the ability of PNMR’s subsidiaries to pay dividends. PNMR’s primary sources of dividends are its operating subsidiaries.
PNM declared and paid cash dividends to PNMR of $94.460.7 million, $30.34.1 million, and $155.094.4 million in 20152017, 20142016, and 2013.2015. TNMP paid cash dividends to PNMR of $33.244.4 million, $16.331.8 million, and $3.733.2 million in 20152017, 20142016, and 2013.2015.
The NMPRC has placed certain restrictions on the ability of PNM to pay dividends to PNMR, including the restriction that PNM cannot pay dividends that cause its debt rating to fall below investment grade. The NMPRC provisions allow PNM to pay dividends, without prior NMPRC approval, from current earnings, which is determined on a rolling four quarter basis, andor from equity contributions previously made by PNMR without prior NMPRC approval.PNMR. The Federal Power Act also imposes certain restrictions on dividends by public utilities.utilities, including that dividends cannot be paid from paid-in capital. The Company’s revolving credit facilities and term loans contain a covenant requiring the maintenance of debt-to-capital ratios of not more than 65%, which could limit amounts of dividends that could be paid. For PNMR and PNM, these ratios reflect the present value of payments under the PVNGS leases as debt. PNM also has other financial covenants that limit the transfer of assets, through dividends or other means, including a requirement to obtain approval of certain financial counterparties to transfer more than five percent of PNM’s assets. As of December 31, 20152017,: none of the numerical tests would restrict the payment of dividends from the retained earnings of TNMP; the transfer of assets limitation would allow the payment of dividends by PNM of up to $246.1 million; and the 65% debt-to-capital covenant would allow the payment of dividends by PNMR PNM, or TNMP, except that PNM would not be ableof up to distribute amounts in excess of approximately $153 million and TNMP would not be able to distribute amounts in excess of approximately $195 million without approval of regulators or financial counterparties.$133.9 million.
 
In addition, the ability of PNMR to declare dividends is dependent upon the extent to which cash flows will support dividends, the availability of retained earnings, financial circumstances and performance, current and future regulatory decisions, Congressional and legislative acts, and economic conditions. Conditions imposed by the NMPRC or PUCT, future growth plans and related capital requirements, and business considerations may also affect PNMR’s ability to pay dividends.
Preferred Stock
PNM’s cumulative preferred shares outstanding bear dividends at 4.58% per annum. PNM preferred stock does not have a mandatory redemption requirement, but may be redeemed, at PNM’s option, at 102% of the stated value plus accrued dividends. The holders of the PNM preferred stock are entitled to payment before the holders of common stock in the event of any liquidation or dissolution or distribution of assets of PNM. In addition, PNM’s preferred stock is not entitled to a sinking fund and cannot be converted into any other class of stock of PNM.
PNMR and TNMP have no preferred stock outstanding. The authorized shares of PNMR and TNMP preferred stock are 10 million shares and 1 million shares.

(6)Financing
The Company’s financing strategy includes both short-term and long-term borrowings. The Company utilizes short-term revolving credit facilities, as well as cash flows from operations, to provide funds for both construction and operating expenditures.

B- 41B - 42

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

The Company’s financing strategy includes both short-term and long-term borrowings. The Company utilizes short-term revolving credit facilities, as well as cash flows from operations, to provide funds for both construction and operating expenditures. Depending on market and other conditions, the Company will periodically sell long-term debt or enter into term loan arrangements and use the proceeds to reduce borrowings under the revolving credit facilities.facilities or refinance other debt. Each of the Company’s revolving credit facilities and the Company’s term loans contains onea single financial covenant, thatwhich requires the maintenance of a debt-to-capital ratiosratio of less than or equal to 65% (for PNMR, and PNM, these ratios reflect the present value of payments under the PVNGS leases as debt) and generally also include customary covenants, events of default, cross default provisions and change of control provisions.
PNM must obtain NMPRC approval for any financing transaction having a maturity of more than 18 months. In addition, PNM files its annual short-term financing plan with the NMPRC.
Financing Activities
PNMR

On December 14, 2012,At January 1, 2015, PNMR entered into a $100.0had outstanding the one-year $100.0 million PNMR Term Loan Agreement, (as amended and restated, the “PNMR Term Loan Agreement”) among PNMR, the lenders identified therein, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent. Onwhich was due in December 27, 2012, PNMR borrowed $100.0 million under the agreement and used the funds to repay $100.0 million in borrowings made under the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility. On2015. In December 27, 2013,2015, PNMR entered into an agreement that amendedextended the maturity date for an additional year and restatedincreased the amount outstanding to $150.0 million. The PNMR Term Loan Agreement extending the maturity date to December 26, 2014 from December 27, 2013. On December 22, 2014, PNMR entered into another agreement that amended and restated the PNMR Term Loan Agreement extending the maturity date towas repaid on December 21, 2015. On December 21, 2015, PNMR entered into the Third Amended and Restated PNMR Term Loan Agreement that increased the amount of the PNMR Term Loan Agreement to $150.0 million and extended the maturity date to December 21, 2016.

On March 9, 2015, PNMR entered into a $150.0 million Term Loan Agreement (“PNMR(the “PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement”) between PNMR, the lenders identified therein, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Lenderlender and Administrative Agent.administrative agent. The PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement bears interest at a variable rate, which was 1.22%2.34% at December 31, 2015,2017, and must be repaid on or before March 9, 2018.

In SeptemberAt January 1, 2015, PNMR entered into a hedging agreement whereby it effectively established a fixed interest rate of 1.927% for borrowings under the PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement for the period from January 11, 2016 through March 9, 2018. This hedge is accounted for as a cash-flow hedge and had a fair value gain of $0.1 million at December 31, 2015, using Level 2 inputs under GAAP determined using forward LIBOR curves under the mid-market convention to discount cash flows over the remaining term of the swap agreements.

In the year ended December 31, 2013, PNMR purchased $23.8 million aggregate principal amount of its outstanding 9.25% Senior Unsecured Notes, Series A, due 2015, through several open-market purchases, for $26.9 million plus accrued and unpaid interest. PNMR recognized losses of $3.3 million on these purchases, including transaction costs and write-off of the proportionate amount of the deferred costs of the original issuance of the notes, which are included in Other deductions on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings.

At December 31, 2014, PNMR had an aggregate outstanding principal amount of $118.8 million of its 9.25% Senior Unsecured Notes, Series A, which were due on May 15, 2015. PNMR repaid all of the 9.25% Senior Unsecured Notes Series A at the scheduled maturity, utilizing proceeds from the PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement and borrowings under the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility.

As discussed in Note 16, NM Capital, a wholly ownedwholly-owned subsidiary of PNMR, entered into a $125.0 million term loan agreement (the “BTMU Term Loan Agreement”), among NM Capital, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. (“BTMU”), with BTMU, as lender and BTMU, as Administrative Agent,administrative agent, as of February 1, 2016. The BTMU Term Loan Agreement has a maturity date of February 1, 2021 and bears interest at a rate based on LIBOR plus a customary spread.spread, which aggregated 4.13% at December 31, 2017. PNMR, as parent company of NM Capital, has guaranteed NM Capital’s obligations. The BTMU Term Loan Agreement and the guarantee include customary covenants, including requirements for PNMRobligations to not exceed a maximum debt-to-capital ratio and customary events of default consistent with PNMR’s other term loan agreements. In addition, the BTMU Term Loan Agreement has a cross default provision and a change of control provision.BTMU. NM Capital utilized the proceeds of the BTMU Term Loan Agreement to provide funding of $125.0 million (the “Westmoreland Loan”) to

B- 42

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

a ring-fenced, bankruptcy-remote, special-purpose entity that is a subsidiary of Westmoreland Coal Company to finance Westmoreland’s purchase of SJCC. The BTMU Term Loan Agreement requires that NM Capital utilize all amounts, less taxes and fees, it receives under the purchase priceWestmoreland Loan to repay the BTMU Term Loan Agreement. The principal balance outstanding under the BTMU Term Loan Agreement was $50.1 million at December 31, 2017 and $45.1 million at February 20, 2018. Based on scheduled payments on the Westmoreland Loan and WSJ’s payment of $5.6 million on February 1, 2018, (which included $4.8 million in excess of the stockscheduled payment), NM Capital estimates it will make principal payments of SJCC.$10.6 million on the BTMU Term Loan Agreement in the year ended December 31, 2018, including the payment made on February 1, 2018 of $5.0 million (which included $3.3 million in excess of the payment previously scheduled).

On October 21, 2016, PNMR entered into letter of credit arrangements with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “JPM LOC Facility”) under which letters of credit aggregating $30.3 million were issued to facilitate the posting of reclamation bonds, which SJCC is required to post in connection with permits relating to the operation of the San Juan mine (Note 16).

On December 21, 2016, PNMR entered into two term loan agreements: (1) a $100.0 million term loan agreement (the “PNMR 2016 One-Year Term Loan”) among PNMR, the lenders identified therein, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as administrative agent, that was to mature on December 21, 2017; and (2) a $100.0 million term loan agreement (the “PNMR 2016 Two-Year Term Loan”) among PNMR and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as lender and administrative agent, that matures on December 21, 2018. The proceeds of the term loans were used to repay the $150.0 million PNMR Term Loan Agreement and to reduce borrowings under the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility. On December 15, 2017, the PNMR 2016 One-Year Term Loan was extended to December 14, 2018. The PNMR 2016 One-Year Term Loan (as extended) and the PNMR 2016 Two-Year Term Loan bear interest at variable rates, which were 2.32% and 2.32% at December 31, 2017.
  

B-B - 43

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

PNM
On April 22, 2013,January 1, 2015, PNM entered intohad a $75.0$125.0 million Term Loan Agreement (the “PNM 2013 Term Loan Agreement”) among PNM, the lenders identified therein, and Union Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent. Funding of the PNM 2013 Term Loan Agreement occurred on April 22, 2013, at which time the funds were used to repay $75.0 million in borrowings made under the PNM Revolving Credit Facility.

On March 5, 2014, PNM entered into a $175.0 million Term Loan Agreement (the “PNM 2014 Term Loan Agreement”) among PNM and BTMU, as Lender and Administrative Agent. On March 5, 2014, PNM used a portion of the funds borrowed under the PNM 2014 Term Loan Agreement to repay all amounts outstanding under the PNM 2013 Term Loan Agreement and other short-term amounts outstanding. The PNM 2014 Term Loan Agreement was repaid on August 12, 2015.

On December 22, 2014, PNM entered into a multi-draw term loan facility (the “PNM Multi-draw Term Loan”) with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Lenderthat had outstanding borrowings of $100.0 million and Administrative Agent. The $125.0 million facility has a maturity date of June 21, 2016. At December 31, 2014, outstanding borrowings under the PNM Multi-draw Term Loan were $100.0 million. PNM drew the remaining capacity of $25.0 million on May 8, 2015 resulting in outstanding borrowings at December 31, 2015 of $125.0 million, which are included in current maturities of long-term debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.2015. The PNM Multi-draw Term Loan bears interest at a variable rate, which was 0.99% at December 31, 2015.repaid on May 20, 2016.

At December 31, 2014,January 1, 2015, PNM had a $39.3 million series of outstanding Senior Unsecured Notes, Pollution Control Revenue Bonds, which have a final maturity of June 1, 2043. These PCRBs were subject to mandatory tender for remarketing on June 1, 2015 and were successfully remarketed on that date. The notes now bear interest at 2.40%2.45%, continue to have an outstanding amount of $39.3 million, and are subject to mandatory tender for remarketing on June 1, 2020.

On August 11, 2015, PNM issued $250.0 million aggregate principal amount of its 3.850% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2025. The notes will mature on August 1, 2025. Portions of the proceeds from the offering were used to repay thean existing $175.0 million PNM 2014 Term Loan Agreementterm loan and to repay outstanding borrowings under the PNM Revolving Credit Facility, the PNM 2014 New Mexico Credit Facility, and PNM’s intercompany loan from PNMR.

On May 20, 2016, PNM hasentered into a shelf registration statement, which will expire$175.0 million term loan agreement (the “PNM 2016 Term Loan Agreement”) between PNM and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as lender and administrative agent. The PNM 2016 Term Loan Agreement bore interest at a variable rate and had a maturity date of November 17, 2017. PNM used a portion of the proceeds of the PNM 2016 Term Loan Agreement to prepay without penalty the $125.0 million outstanding under the PNM Multi-draw Term Loan. The PNM 2016 Term Loan Agreement was repaid on July 20, 2017.

On September 27, 2016, PNM participated in May 2017, with capacitythe issuance and sale of an aggregate of $146.0 million of PCRBs by the City of Farmington, New Mexico. The proceeds from the sale were utilized to refund an aggregate of $146.0 million of outstanding PCRBs previously issued by the City of Farmington. The arrangements governing the PCRBs result in PNM reflecting the bonds as debt on its financial statements. The PCRBs bear interest at a rate of 1.875% for the issuance of up to $250.0 million of senior unsecured notes.
TNMP
Onperiod from September 27, 2016 through September 30, 2011, TNMP2021, have a mandatory tender for remarketing on October 1, 2021, and a final maturity on April 1, 2033.

At January 1, 2015, PNM had $37.0 million of outstanding PCRBs, which have a final maturity of June 1, 2040, and $20.0 million of outstanding PCRBs which have a final maturity of June 1, 2042. These PCRBs were subject to mandatory tender for remarketing on June 1, 2017 and were successfully remarketed on that date. The $37.0 million of PCRBs now bear interest at 2.125% and the $20.0 million of PCRBs now bear interest at 2.45%. Both series are now subject to mandatory tender for remarketing on June 1, 2022.

On July 20, 2017, PNM entered into a $200.0 million term loan agreement (the “PNM 2017 Term Loan Agreement”) between PNM and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as lender and administrative agent, and U.S. Bank National Association, as lender. The PNM 2017 Term Loan Agreement bears interest at a variable rate, which was 2.29% at December 31, 2017, and must be repaid on or before January 18, 2019. PNM used the TNMP 2011proceeds of the PNM 2017 Term Loan Agreement to prepay without penalty the $175.0 million PNM 2016 Term Loan Agreement and borrowed $50.0 million under it. Borrowings under the TNMP 2011 Term Loan Agreement were due by June 30, 2014. The debt was repaid from the proceeds of the TNMP 2013 Bond Purchase Agreement. TNMP entered into hedging agreements whereby it effectively established fixed interest rates for such borrowing over the life of the debt.
On March 6, 2013, TNMP commenced an offer to exchange any and all of TNMP’s $265.5 million aggregate principal amount outstanding 9.50% First Mortgage Bonds, due 2019, Series 2009A, for a new series of 6.95% First Mortgage Bonds, due 2043, Series 2013A, and up to $140 in cash for each $1,000 of bonds exchanged. Settlement of the exchange offer occurred on April 3, 2013. Upon settlement, TNMP issued $93.2 million of 6.95% First Mortgage Bonds and paid an aggregate of $13.0 million in cash in exchange for $93.2 million of 9.50% First Mortgage Bonds, in addition to payment of accrued and unpaid interest on the exchanged bonds. The exchange resulted in a premium on the 6.95% First Mortgage Bonds reflecting the contractual interest rate being in excess of the market rate of interest on the date of the exchange. The premium amounted to $23.2 million, after reduction for the cash paid in the exchange. A regulatory asset was recorded offsetting the premium, including the cash consideration paid in the exchange.reduce short-term borrowings.

On December 9, 2013, TNMPJuly 28, 2017, PNM entered into an agreement (the “TNMP 2013 Bond Purchase“PNM 2017 Senior Unsecured Note Agreement”), which provided that TNMP would issue $80.0 with institutional investors for the sale of $450.0 million aggregate principal amount of 4.03% first mortgage bonds, due 2024Senior Unsecured Notes (the “Series 2014A Bonds”“PNM 2018 SUNs”) offered in private placement transactions. Under the PNM 2017 Senior Unsecured Note Agreement, PNM has agreed to issue $350.0 million of the PNM 2018 SUNs on or about June 27, 2014, subject to satisfaction of certain conditions. TNMP issued the Series 2014A Bonds on June 27, 2014. TNMP used $50.0May 15, 2018 and $100.0 million of the PNM 2018 SUNs on or about August 1, 2018. The issuances of the PNM 2018 SUNs are subject to the satisfaction of customary conditions. PNM will use the gross proceeds from the PNM 2018 SUNs to repay $350.0 million of PNM’s 7.95% Senior Unsecured Notes that mature on May 15, 2018 and $100.0 million of PNM’s 7.50% Senior Unsecured Notes that mature on August 1, 2018. The terms of the full outstanding amountPNM 2017 Senior Unsecured Note Agreement include customary covenants, including a covenant that requires the maintenance of a term loandebt-to-capital ratio of less than or equal to 65%, customary events of default, including a cross default provision, and usedcovenants regarding parity of financial covenants, liens and guarantees with respect to PNM’s material credit facilities. In the remaining $30.0event of a change of control, PNM will be required to offer to prepay the PNM 2018 SUNs at par. PNM will have the right to redeem any or all of the PNM 2018 SUNs prior to their respective maturities, subject to payment of a customary make-whole premium. In accordance with GAAP, aggregate borrowings of $450.0 million of proceedsunder PNM’s Senior Unsecured Notes due on May 15, 2018 and August 1, 2018, are reflected as being long-term in the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2017 since the PNM 2017 Senior Unsecured Note Agreement demonstrates PNM’s ability and intent to reduce short-term debt.re-finance the aggregate $450.0 million Senior Unsecured Notes on a


B-B - 44

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

long-term basis. Information concerning the maturities and interest rates on the PNM 2018 SUNs to be issued in May 2018 and August 2018 is as follows:
Scheduled      
Funding Maturity Principal Interest
Date Date Amount Rate
    (In millions)  
       
May 15, 2018 May 15, 2023 $55.0
 3.15%
May 15, 2018 May 15, 2025 104.0
 3.45%
May 15, 2018 May 15, 2028 88.0
 3.68%
May 15, 2018 May 15, 2033 38.0
 3.93%
May 15, 2018 May 15, 2038 45.0
 4.22%
May 15, 2018 May 15, 2048 20.0
 4.50%
    350.0
  
August 1, 2018 August 1, 2028 15.0
 3.78%
August 1, 2018 August 1, 2048 85.0
 4.60%
    100.0
  
    $450.0
  

PNM has a shelf registration statement, which will expire in May 2020, with capacity for the issuance of up to $475.0 million of senior unsecured notes.
TNMP

On December 17, 2015, TNMP entered into an agreement (the “TNMP 2015 Bond Purchase Agreement”), which provided that TNMP would issue $60.0 million aggregate principal amount of 3.53% first mortgage bonds, due 2026 (the “Series 2016A Bonds”) on or about February 10, 2016, subject to satisfaction of certain conditions. TNMP issued the Series 2016A Bondsbonds on February 10, 2016 and used the proceeds to reduce short-term debt and intercompany debt.

On June 14, 2017, TNMP entered into an agreement (the “TNMP 2017 Bond Purchase Agreement”), which provided TNMP would issue $60.0 million aggregate principal amount of 3.22% first mortgage bonds, due 2027 on or about August 25, 2017, subject to satisfaction of certain conditions. TNMP issued the bonds on August 24, 2017 and used the proceeds to reduce short-term and intercompany debt and for general corporate purposes.

Interest Rate Hedging Activities

In September 2015, PNMR entered into a hedging agreement whereby it effectively established a fixed interest rate of 1.927%, subject to change if there is a change in PNMR’s credit rating, for borrowings under the PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement for the period from January 11, 2016 through its maturity on March 9, 2018. In 2017, PNMR entered into three separate four-year hedging agreements whereby it effectively established fixed interest rates of 1.926%, 1.823%, and 1.629%, plus customary spreads over LIBOR, subject to change if there is a change in PNMR’s credit rating, for three separate tranches, each of $50.0 million, of its variable rate debt.

These hedge agreements are accounted for as cash flow hedges. The fair value of the hedge related to the PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement was a gain of $0.2 million at December 31, 2017 and is included in Other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and a loss of less than $0.1 million at December 31, 2016. At December 31, 2017, the remaining hedge agreements had fair value gains totaling $1.4 million, which are included in Other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The fair values were determined using Level 2 inputs under GAAP, including using forward LIBOR curves under the mid-market convention to discount cash flows over the remaining term of the agreement.
Borrowing Arrangements Between PNMR and its Subsidiaries
PNMR has one-year intercompany loan agreements with its subsidiaries. Individual subsidiary loan agreements vary in amount up to $100.0 million and have either reciprocal or non-reciprocal terms. Interest charged to the subsidiaries is equivalent to interest paid by PNMR on its short-term borrowings or the money-market interest rate if PNMR does not have any short-term borrowings outstanding. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, TNMP had outstanding borrowings of $11.8 million and $22.7 million from PNMR. At February 19, 2016, TNMP had borrowings of $15.1 million from PNMR. PNM had no outstanding borrowings from PNMR at December 31, 20152017 or February 19, 2016.20, 2018, and

Short-term Debt

The PNMR Revolving Credit Facility has a financing capacity of $300.0 million and the PNM Revolving Credit Facility has a financing capacity of $400.0 million. In October 2015, the maturity of both of these facilities was extended from October 31, 2019 to October 31, 2020. The TNMP Revolving Credit Facility is a $75.0 million revolving credit facility secured by $75.0 million aggregate principal amount of TNMP first mortgage bonds. The TNMP Revolving Credit Facility matures on September 18, 2018.
On January 8, 2014, PNM entered into a $50.0 million unsecured revolving credit facility (the “PNM New Mexico Credit Facility”) by and among PNM, the lenders identified therein, U.S. Bank National Association, as Administrative Agent, and BOKF, NA dba Bank of Albuquerque, as Syndication Agent. The nine participating lenders are all banks that have a significant presence in New Mexico and PNM’s service territory or are headquartered in New Mexico. The PNM New Mexico Credit Facility expires on January 8, 2018 and contains covenants and conditions similar to those in the PNM Revolving Credit Facility.

At December 31, 2015, interest rates on outstanding borrowings were 1.26% for the PNMR Term Loan Agreement (discussed under Financing Activities above), 1.67% for the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility, and 1.29% for the TNMP Revolving Credit Facility. The PNM Revolving Credit Facility and the PNM New Mexico Credit Facility had no borrowings outstanding at December 31, 2015. Short-term debt outstanding consists of:
  December 31,
Short-term Debt 2015 2014
  (In thousands)
PNM:    
PNM Revolving Credit Facility $
 $
PNM New Mexico Credit Facility 
 
TNMP Revolving Credit Facility 59,000
 5,000
PNMR    
PNMR Revolving Credit Facility 41,600
 600
PNMR Term Loan Agreement 150,000
 100,000
  $250,600
 $105,600
In addition to the above borrowings, PNMR, PNM, and TNMP had letters of credit outstanding of $6.2 million, $3.2 million, and $0.1 million at December 31, 2015 that reduce the available capacity under their respective revolving credit facilities.

At February 19, 2016, PNMR, PNM, and TNMP had $187.7 million, $350.6 million, and $59.9 million of availability under their respective revolving credit facilities, including reductions of availability due to outstanding letters of credit, and PNM had no availability under the PNM New Mexico Credit Facility. Total availability at February 19, 2016, on a consolidated basis, was $598.2 million for PNMR. At February 19, 2016, PNMR had invested cash of $1.9 million. PNM and TNMP had no invested cash at February 19, 2016.

B-B - 45

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

Long-Term$4.6 million at December 31, 2016. PNM had no outstanding borrowings from PNMR at December 31, 2017, December 31, 2016, or February 20, 2018.

Short-term Debt

Information concerning long-termCurrently, the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility has a financing capacity of $300.0 million and the PNM Revolving Credit Facility has a financing capacity of $400.0 million. PNMR and PNM have entered into agreements to extend the maturity of both facilities from October 31, 2020 to October 31, 2022. However, one lender, whose current commitment is $10.0 million under the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility and $40.0 million under the PNM Revolving Credit Facility, did not agree to extend its commitments beyond October 31, 2020. Unless one or more of the other current lenders or a new lender assumes the commitments of the non-extending lender, the financing capacities will be reduced to $290.0 million for the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility and $360.0 million for the PNM Revolving Credit Facility from November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2022. The TNMP Revolving Credit Facility is a $75.0 million revolving credit facility secured by $75.0 million aggregate principal amount of TNMP first mortgage bonds. In September 2017, the TNMP Revolving Credit Facility was extended to mature on September 23, 2022.
At January 1, 2015, PNM had a $50.0 million unsecured revolving credit facility (the “PNM 2014 New Mexico Credit Facility”) that was scheduled to expire on January 8, 2018. On December 12, 2017, PNM entered into a new $40.0 million unsecured revolving credit facility (the “PNM 2017 New Mexico Credit Facility”) by and among PNM, the lenders identified therein, U.S. Bank National Association, as Administrative Agent, and BOKF, NA dba Bank of Albuquerque, as Syndication Agent to replace the PNM 2014 New Mexico Credit Facility. The eight participating lenders are all banks that have a significant presence or are headquartered in New Mexico. The PNM 2017 New Mexico Credit Facility expires on December 12, 2022 and contains covenants and conditions similar to those in the PNM Revolving Credit Facility.

Short-term debt outstanding and unamortized (premiums), discounts, and debt issuance costs is as follows:consists of:
  December 31, 2015 December 31, 2014
  Principal Unamortized Discounts, (Premiums), and Issuance Costs, net Principal Unamortized Discounts, (Premiums), and Issuance Costs, net
  (In thousands)
PNM Debt        
Senior Unsecured Notes, Pollution Control Revenue Bonds:        
4.875% due 2033 $146,000
 $721
 $146,000
 $807
6.25% due 2038 36,000
 251
 36,000
 262
4.75% due 2040, mandatory tender at June 1, 2017 37,000
 82
 37,000
 138
5.20% due 2040, mandatory tender at June 1, 2020 40,045
 190
 40,045
 233
5.90% due 2040 255,000
 2,222
 255,000
 2,313
6.25% due 2040 11,500
 100
 11,500
 104
2.54% due 2042, mandatory tender at June 1, 2017 20,000
 199
 20,000
 331
4.00% due 2043, mandatory tender at June 1, 2015 
 
 39,300
 36
2.40% due 2043, mandatory tender at June 1, 2020 39,300
 456
 
 
5.20% due 2043, mandatory tender at June 1, 2020 21,000
 96
 21,000
 118
Senior Unsecured Notes:        
7.95% due 2018 350,000
 1,718
 350,000
 2,441
7.50% due 2018 100,025
 320
 100,025
 444
5.35% due 2021 160,000
 943
 160,000
 1,106
3.85% due 2025 250,000
 2,874
 
 
PNM Term Loan Agreement due 2015 
 
 175,000
 
PNM Multi-draw Term Loan due 2016 125,000
 21
 100,000
 
  1,590,870
 10,193
 1,490,870
 8,333
Less current maturities 125,000
 21
 214,300
 36
  1,465,870
 10,172
 1,276,570
 8,297
TNMP Debt        
First Mortgage Bonds:        
9.50% due 2019, Series 2009A 172,302
 2,682
 172,302
 3,508
6.95% due 2043, Series 2013A 93,198
 (19,490) 93,198
 (20,208)
4.03% due 2024, Series 2014A 80,000
 897
 80,000
 959
  345,500
 (15,911) 345,500
 (15,741)
Less current maturities 
 
 
 
  345,500
 (15,911) 345,500
 (15,741)
PNMR Debt        
PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement due 2018 150,000
 140
 
 
Senior unsecured notes, 9.25% due 2015 
 
 118,766
 159
  150,000
 140
 118,766
 159
Less current maturities 
 
 118,766
 159
  150,000
 140
 
 
Total Consolidated PNMR Debt 2,086,370
 (5,578) 1,955,136
 (7,249)
Less current maturities 125,000
 21
 333,066
 195
  $1,961,370
 $(5,599) $1,622,070
 $(7,444)
  December 31,
Short-term Debt 2017 2016
  (In thousands)
PNM:    
PNM Revolving Credit Facility $39,800
 $35,000
PNM 2014 New Mexico Credit Facility 
 26,000
PNM 2017 New Mexico Credit Facility 
 
  39,800
 61,000
TNMP Revolving Credit Facility 
 
PNMR:    
PNMR Revolving Credit Facility 165,600
 126,100
PNMR 2016 One-Year Term Loan 100,000
 100,000
  $305,400
 $287,100
In addition to the above borrowings, PNMR, PNM, and TNMP had letters of credit outstanding of $6.4 million, $2.5 million, and $0.1 million at December 31, 2017 that reduce the available capacity under their respective revolving credit facilities. In addition, PNMR had $30.3 million of letters of credit outstanding under the JPM LOC Facility. At December 31, 2017, interest rates on outstanding borrowings were 2.76% for the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility and 2.59% for the PNM Revolving Credit Facility.

At February 20, 2018, PNMR, PNM, and TNMP had $111.2 million, $340.1 million, and $51.0 million of availability under their respective revolving credit facilities, including reductions of availability due to outstanding letters of credit, and PNM had $20.0 million availability under the PNM 2017 New Mexico Credit Facility. Total availability at February 20, 2018, on a consolidated basis, was $522.3 million for PNMR. At February 20, 2018, PNMR had invested cash of $0.9 million. PNM and TNMP had no invested cash at February 20, 2018.

On February 26, 2018, PNMR Development entered into a $24.5 million credit facility with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as lender. The facility allows PNMR Development to borrow on a revolving credit basis and also provides for the issuance of letters of credit. The facility matures on February 25, 2019. The facility bears interest at a variable rate and contains terms similar to the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility. PNMR has guaranteed the obligations of PNMR Development under the facility. PNMR Development anticipates using the facility to finance its participation in NMRD (Note 1).

B-B - 46

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

Long-Term Debt

In April 2015, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2015-03 – Interest – Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30) Information concerning long-term debt outstanding and unamortized (premiums), which, as subsequently amended, requires thatdiscounts, and debt issuance costs be reflectedis as a direct reductionfollows:
  December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
  Principal Unamortized Discounts, (Premiums), and Issuance Costs, net Principal Unamortized Discounts, (Premiums), and Issuance Costs, net
  (In thousands)
PNM Debt        
Senior Unsecured Notes, Pollution Control Revenue Bonds:        
1.875% due April 2033, mandatory tender - October 1, 2021 $146,000
 $1,383
 $146,000
 $1,807
6.25% due January 2038 36,000
 228
 36,000
 239
4.75% due June 2040, mandatory tender - June 1, 2017 
 
 37,000
 25
2.125% due June 2040, mandatory tender - June 1, 2022 37,000
 404
 
 
5.20% due June 2040, mandatory tender - June 1, 2020 40,045
 105
 40,045
 147
5.90% due June 2040 255,000
 2,040
 255,000
 2,131
6.25% due June 2040 11,500
 92
 11,500
 96
2.54% due September 2042, mandatory tender - June 1, 2017 
 
 20,000
 67
2.45% due September 2042, mandatory tender - June 1, 2022 20,000
 153
 
 
2.40% due June 2043, mandatory tender - June 1, 2020 39,300
 243
 39,300
 340
5.20% due June 2043, mandatory tender - June 1, 2020 21,000
 53
 21,000
 75
Senior Unsecured Notes:        
7.95% due May 2018 350,000
 272
 350,000
 995
7.50% due August 2018 100,025
 73
 100,025
 197
5.35% due October 2021 160,000
 617
 160,000
 780
3.85% due August 2025 250,000
 2,274
 250,000
 2,574
PNM 2016 Term Loan Agreement due November 2017 
 
 175,000
 28
PNM 2017 Term Loan Agreement due January 2019 200,000
 23
 
 

 1,665,870
 7,960
 1,640,870
 9,501
Less current maturities 25
 2
 232,000
 120

 1,665,845
 7,958
 1,408,870
 9,381
TNMP Debt        
First Mortgage Bonds:        
9.50% due April 2019 172,302
 1,032
 172,302
 1,857
6.95% due April 2043 93,198
 (18,057) 93,198
 (18,773)
4.03% due July 2024 80,000
 686
 80,000
 792
3.53% due February 2026 60,000
 667
 60,000
 749
3.22% due August 2027 60,000
 552
 
 
  465,500
 (15,120) 405,500
 (15,375)
Less current maturities 
 
 
 
  465,500
 (15,120) 405,500
 (15,375)
PNMR Debt        
PNMR 2015 Term Loan Agreement due March 2018 150,000
 12
 150,000
 84
BTMU Term Loan Agreement, payments through February 2021 50,137
 1,001
 92,207
 1,634
PNMR 2016 Two-Year Term Loan due December 2018 100,000
 9
 100,000
 21
  300,137
 1,022
 342,207
 1,739
Less current maturities 257,268
 396
 42,025
 557
  42,869
 626
 300,182
 1,182
Total Consolidated PNMR Debt 2,431,507
 (6,138) 2,388,577
 (4,135)
Less current maturities 257,293
 398
 274,025
 677
  $2,174,214
 $(6,536) $2,114,552
 $(4,812)

B - 47

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015. The ASU requires that upon adoption it is to be applied retrospectively to prior years. Accordingly, amounts for 2014 that previously were included in other deferred charges are now reflected as reductions of the related debt in the above table2017, 2016 and on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The 2014 amounts reclassified were none for PNMR, less than $0.1 million for PNM, and none for TNMP that reduce current installments of long-term debt and $0.2 million for PNMR, $8.1 million for PNM, and $4.4 million for TNMP that reduce long-term debt.2015



Reflecting mandatory tender dates and the impacts of the refinancing under the PNM 2017 Senior Unsecured Note Agreement discussed above, long-term debt matures as follows:
PNMR PNM TNMP PNMR ConsolidatedPNMR PNM TNMP PNMR Consolidated
(In thousands)(In thousands)
2016$
 $125,000
 $
 $125,000
2017
 57,000
 
 57,000
2018150,000
 450,025
 
 600,025
$257,268
 $25
 $
 $257,293
2019
 
 172,302
 172,302
12,357
 200,000
 172,302
 384,659
2020
 100,345
 
 100,345
25,862
 100,345
 
 126,207
20214,650
 306,000
 
 310,650
2022
 57,000
 
 57,000
Thereafter
 858,500
 173,198
 1,031,698

 1,002,500
 293,198
 1,295,698
Total$150,000
 $1,590,870
 $345,500
 $2,086,370
$300,137
 $1,665,870
 $465,500
 $2,431,507


(7)Lease Commitments
The Company leases office buildings, vehicles, and other equipment under operating leases. In addition, PNM leases interests in Units 1 and 2 of PVNGS and, through April 1, 2015, leased an interest in the EIP transmission line. Many of PNM’s electric transmission and distribution facilities are located on lands that require the grant of rights-of-way from governmental entities, Native American tribes, or private parties. PNM has completed several renewals of rights-of-way, the largest of which is a renewal with the Navajo Nation, and has no significant rights-of-way that will expire within the next five years. PNM is obligated to pay the Navajo Nation annual payments of $6.0 million, subject to adjustment each year based on the Consumer Price Index, through 2029. All of the Company’s leases, includingas well as the Navajo Nation rights-of-way agreement, are accounted for as operating leases. See New Accounting Pronouncements in Note 1.

The PVNGS leases were entered into in 1985 and 1986 and initially were scheduled to expire on January 15, 2015 for the four Unit 1 leases and January 15, 2016 for the four Unit 2 leases. Each of the leases provided PNM with an option to purchase the leased assets at fair market value at the end of the leases, but PNM did not have a fixed price purchase option. In addition, the leases provided PNM with options to renew the leases at fixed rates set forth in each of the leases for two years beyond the termination of the original lease terms. The option periods on certain leases could be further extended for up to an additional six years (the “Maximum Option Period”) if the appraised remaining useful lives and fair value of the leased assets were greater than parameters set forth in the leases. The rental payments during the fixed renewal option periods are 50% of the amounts during the original terms of the leases. Gross annual lease payments before considering the impacts of amounts returned to PNM through ownership of the lessor notes, aggregated $33.0 million for the Unit 1 leases and $23.7 million for the Unit 2 leases prior to the expiration of their original terms. For leases that are extended, the leases provide PNM with the option to purchase the leased assets at fair market value at the end of the extended lease terms.

Following procedures set forth in the PVNGS leases, PNM notified each of the four lessors under the Unit 1 leases and the lessor under the one Unit 2 lease containing the Maximum Option Period provision that it would elect to renew those leases for the Maximum Option Period on the expiration date of the original leases. PNM and each of those lessors entered into amendments to each of the leases setting forth the terms and conditions that would implement the extension of the term of the leases through the agreed upon Maximum Option Period. The four Unit 1 leases now expire on January 15, 2023 and the one Unit 2 lease now expires on January 15, 2024. The annual payments during the renewal periods aggregate $16.5 million for the PVNGS Unit 1 leases and $1.6 million for the Unit 2 lease, which are included in the table of future lease payments shown below.

For leases that were extended, the leases provide PNM with the option to purchase the leased assets at fair market value at the end of the extended lease terms. Each extended lease provides that no later than three years prior to the expiration of the lease, PNM is required to give notice to the lessor if it will “retain” the leased assets, through the purchase of the assets at the end of the lease, or “return” the leased assets to the lessor. The election made under each of the leases is irrevocable and independent of the elections made under the other leases. PNM has begun to analyze what action it will take with respect to each lease. If PNM elects to exercise its purchase option under any of the leases, PNM would attempt to negotiate the purchase price with the lessor of the lease. The leases provide an appraisal process to determine fair market value in the event the lessor and lessee cannot agree on a purchase price.

B- 47B - 48

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

expires on January 15, 2024. The annual payments during the renewal periods aggregate $16.5 million for the PVNGS Unit 1 leases and $1.6 million for the Unit 2 lease. The table of future lease payments as of December 31, 2015 shown below includes payments during the renewal periods for those leases that have been extended.
For the three PVNGS Unit 2 leases that did not contain the Maximum Option Period provisions, PNM, following procedures set forth in the leases, notified each of the lessors that PNM would elect to purchase the assets underlying those leases on the expiration date of the original leases. PNM and the lessors under these leases entered into agreements that established the purchase price, representing the fair market value, to be paid by PNM for the assets underlying the leases on January 15, 2016. On January 15, 2016, PNM paid $78.1 million to the lessor under one lease for 31.25 MW of the entitlement from PVNGS Unit 2 and $85.2 million to the lessors under the other two leases for 32.76 MW of the entitlement from PVNGS Unit 2. See Note 17 for information concerning the NMPRC’s treatment of the purchased assets and extended leases in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case.

Covenants in PNM’s PVNGS Units 1 and 2 lease agreements limit PNM’s ability, without consent of the owner participants in the lease transactions, (i) to enter into any merger or consolidation, or (ii) except in connection with normal dividend policy, to convey, transfer, lease or dividend more than 5% of its assets in any single transaction or series of related transactions. PNM is exposed to losses under the PVNGS lease arrangements upon the occurrence of certain events that PNM does not consider to be reasonably likely to occur. Under certain circumstances (for example, the NRC issuing specified violation orders with respect to PVNGS or the occurrence of specified nuclear events), PNM would be required to make specified payments to the equityowner participants, and take title to the leased interests. Exercise of renewal options under the leases requiresrequired that amounts payable to equitythe owner participants under the circumstances described above would increase to the fair market value as of the renewal date. If such an event had occurred as of December 31, 2015, PNM could have been required2017, amounts due to pay the equity participantslessors under the circumstances described above would be up to approximately $205.8$169.9 million, payable on January 15, 20162018 in addition to the scheduled lease payments due on January 15, 2016.2018. In such event, PNM would record the acquired assets at the lower of their fair value or the aggregate of the amount paid and PNM’s carrying value of its investment in PVNGS lessor notes. Reflecting the asset purchases and lease renewal that were effective on January 15, 2016, if such an event were to occur, amounts payable to equity participants under the circumstances described above would be up to $179.1 million on July 15, 2016 in addition to the scheduled lease payments due on July 15, 2016.paid.
PNM owned 60% of the EIP and leased the other 40%, under a lease that expired on April 1, 2015. The lease provided PNM the option of purchasing the leased assets at the end of the lease for fair market value, as well as options to renew the lease. On November 1, 2012, PNM and the lessor entered into a definitive agreement for PNM to exercise the option to purchase on April 1, 2015 the leased capacity at fair market value, which the parties agreed would be $7.7 million. PNM closed on the purchase on April 1, 2015 and recorded the purchase of the assets underlying the lease at that date.

PNMR leased a building that was used as part of its corporate headquarters, as well as housing certain support functions for the utility operations of PNM and TNMP. The lease expired on November 30, 2015 and provided for annual rents of $1.9 million, which are included in the operating lease expense table below.

Operating lease expense, including the PVNGS and EIP leases, was:
 PNMR PNM TNMP
 (In thousands)
2015$68,652
 $63,558
 $3,688
2014$82,756
 $76,745
 $3,932
2013$82,882
 $78,306
 $2,663
 PNMR PNM TNMP
 (In thousands)
2017$35,972
 $31,817
 $3,570
2016$37,432
 $32,843
 $3,748
2015$61,088
 $55,994
 $3,688

As discussed under Investments in Note 1, the PVNGS Capital Trust, which was consolidated by PNM through January 15, 2016, acquired the lessor notes that were issued by the PVNGS lessors. Future minimum operating lease payments at December 31, 20152017 are shown below have been reduced by payments on the PVNGS lessor notes of $9.0 million in 2016 returned in cash to PNM:below:


B- 48
 PNMR PNM TNMP
 (In thousands)
2018$26,802
 $25,726
 $791
201925,638
 25,241
 296
202025,208
 25,122
 
202125,122
 25,122
 
202225,122
 25,122
 
Later years60,708
 60,708
 
   Total minimum lease payments$188,600
 $187,041
 $1,087

B - 49

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

 PNMR PNM TNMP
 (In thousands)
2016$29,825
 $28,496
 $1,062
201726,071
 25,413
 379
201825,240
 24,945
 15
201925,190
 24,902
 
202025,197
 24,902
 
Later years108,990
 108,990
 
   Total minimum lease payments$240,513
 $237,648
 $1,456

(8)Fair Value of Derivative and Other Financial Instruments

Fair value is defined under GAAP as the price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. Fair value is based on current market quotes as available and is supplemented by modeling techniques and assumptions made by the Company to the extent quoted market prices or volatilities are not available. External pricing input availability varies based on market liquidity, term of the agreement, and, for commodities, location. Valuations of derivative assets and liabilities take into account nonperformance risk, including the effect of counterparties’ and the Company’s credit risk. The Company regularly assesses the validity and availability of pricing data for its derivative transactions. Although the Company uses its best judgment in estimating the fair value of these instruments, there are inherent limitations in any estimation technique.
Energy Related Derivative Contracts
Overview
The primary objective for the use of commodity derivative instruments, including energy contracts, options, swaps, and futures, is to manage price risk associated with forecasted purchases of energy and fuel used to generate electricity, as well as managing anticipated generation capacity in excess of forecasted demand from existing customers. PNM’s energy related derivative contracts manage commodity risk. PNM is required to meet the demand and energy needs of its retail and firm-requirements wholesale customers. PNM is exposed to market risk for the needs of its customers not covered under a FPPAC.
PNM was exposed to market risk for its share of PVNGS Unit 3 andthrough December 31, 2017, at which time PVNGS Unit 3 became a jurisdictional resource to serve New Mexico retail customers. Beginning January 1, 2018, PNM is exposed to market risk for its 65 MW of SJGS Unit 4 that is held as merchant plant as ordered by the needsNMPRC (Note 16). PNM has entered into agreements to sell the power from 36 MW of its firm-requirements wholesale customersthat capacity to a third party at a fixed price for the period January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2022, subject to certain conditions. Under these agreements, PNM is obligated to deliver 36 MW of power only when SJGS Unit 4 is operating.  These agreements are not covered under a FPPAC. considered derivatives because there is no notional amount due to the unit-contingent nature of the transactions.
PNM’s operations are managed primarily through a net asset-backed strategy, whereby PNM’s aggregate net open forward contract position is covered by its forecasted excess generation capabilities or market purchases. PNM could be exposed to market risk if its generation capabilities were to be disrupted or if its load requirements were to be greater than anticipated. If all or a portion of load requirements were required to be covered as a result of such unexpected situations, commitments would have to be met through market purchases. TNMP does not enter into energy related derivative contracts.
Commodity Risk
Marketing and procurement of energy often involve market risks associated with managing energy commodities and establishing open positions in the energy markets, primarily on a short-term basis. PNM routinely enters into various derivative instruments such as forward contracts, option agreements, and price basis swap agreements to economically hedge price and volume risk on power commitments and fuel requirements and to minimize the effect of market fluctuations in wholesale portfolios. PNM monitors the market risk of its commodity contracts using VaR calculations to maintain total exposure within management-prescribed limits in accordance with approved risk and credit policies.
Accounting for Derivatives
Under derivative accounting and related rules for energy contracts, the CompanyPNM accounts for its various derivative instruments for the purchase and sale of energy, which meet the definition of a derivative, based on the Company’sPNM’s intent. During the years ended December 31, 20152017, 2014,2016, and 2013, the Company2015, PNM was not hedging its exposure to the variability in future cash flows from commodity derivatives through designated cash flows hedges. The derivative contracts recorded at fair value that do not qualify or are not designated for cash flow hedge accounting are classified as economic hedges. Economic hedges are defined as derivative instruments, including long-term power agreements, used to economically hedge generation assets, purchased power and fuel costs, and customer load requirements. Changes in the fair value of economic hedges are reflected in results of operations and are classified between operating revenues and cost of energy according to the intent of the hedge. The CompanyPNM has no trading transactions.
Fair value is defined under GAAP as the price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. Fair value is based on current market quotes as available and is supplemented by modeling techniques and assumptions made by the Company to the extent quoted market prices or volatilities are not available. External pricing input availability varies based on commodity location, market liquidity, and term of the agreement. Valuations of derivative assets and liabilities take into account nonperformance risk including the effect of counterparties’ and the Company’s credit risk. The Company

B- 49

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

regularly assesses the validity and availability of pricing data for its derivative transactions. Although the Company uses its best judgment in estimating the fair value of these instruments, there are inherent limitations in any estimation technique.
Commodity Derivatives
Commodity derivative instruments that are recorded at fair value, all of which are accounted for as economic hedges, are summarized as follows:
 Economic Hedges
 December 31,
 2015 2014
 (In thousands)
PNM and PNMR   
Current assets$3,813
 $11,232
Deferred charges2,622
 
 6,435
 11,232
Current liabilities(1,859) (1,209)
Long-term liabilities
 (477)
 (1,859) (1,686)
Net$4,576
 $9,546
Included in the above table are $3.0 million of current assets and $2.6 million of deferred charges at December 31, 2015 and $3.0 million of current assets at December 31, 2014 related to contracts for the sale of energy from PVNGS Unit 3 through 2017 at market price plus a premium. Certain of PNM’s commodity derivative instruments in the above table are subject to master netting agreements whereby assets and liabilities could be offset in the settlement process. The Company does not offset fair value, cash collateral, and accrued payable or receivable amounts recognized for derivative instruments under master netting arrangements and the above table reflects the gross amounts of assets and liabilities. The amounts that could be offset under master netting agreements were immaterial at December 31, 2015 and 2014.
At December 31, 2015 and 2014, PNMR and PNM had no amounts recognized for the legal right to reclaim cash collateral. However, at December 31, 2015 and 2014, amounts posted as cash collateral under margin arrangements were $2.7 million and $3.8 million for both PNMR and PNM. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, obligations to return cash collateral were $0.1 million and $0.2 million for both PNMR and PNM. Cash collateral amounts are included in other current assets and other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

PNM has a NMPRC approved hedging plan to manage fuel and purchased power costs related to customers covered by its FPPAC. The table above includes $0.4 million of current assets and $0.2 million of current liabilities at December 31, 2015 related to this plan. The offsets to these amounts are recorded as regulatory assets and liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2014, there were no hedges in place under this plan.

B-B - 50

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

Commodity Derivatives
PNM’s commodity derivative instruments that are recorded at fair value, all of which are accounted for as economic hedges, are summarized as follows:
 Economic Hedges
 December 31,
 2017 2016
 (In thousands)
Current assets$1,088
 $5,224
Deferred charges3,556
 
 4,644
 5,224
Current liabilities(1,182) (2,339)
Long-term liabilities(3,556) 
 (4,738) (2,339)
Net$(94) $2,885
Included in the above table are $2.7 million of current assets at December 31, 2016 related to contracts for the sale of energy from PVNGS Unit 3 through 2017 at market price plus a premium. As noted above, PVNGS Unit 3 has become a jurisdictional resource to serve New Mexico retail customers beginning January 1, 2018. Certain of PNM’s commodity derivative instruments in the above table are subject to master netting agreements whereby assets and liabilities could be offset in the settlement process. PNM does not offset fair value and cash collateral for derivative instruments under master netting arrangements and the above table reflects the gross amounts of fair value assets and liabilities for commodity derivatives. Included in the above table are equal amounts of assets and liabilities aggregating $4.6 million at December 31, 2017 and $0.5 million at December 31, 2016, resulting from PNM’s hazard sharing arrangements with Tri-State (Note 17). The hazard sharing arrangements are net-settled upon delivery. Other amounts that could be offset under master netting agreements were immaterial.
At December 31, 2017 and 2016, PNM had no amounts recognized for the legal right to reclaim cash collateral. However, at December 31, 2017 and 2016, amounts posted as cash collateral under margin arrangements were $0.8 million and $2.6 million. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, obligations to return cash collateral were $0.9 million and $0.1 million. Cash collateral amounts are included in other current assets and other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

PNM has a NMPRC-approved hedging plan to manage fuel and purchased power costs related to customers covered by its FPPAC. There were no amounts hedged under this plan as of December 31, 2017. The table above includes $0.2 million of current assets and $0.1 million of current liabilities at December 31, 2016 related to this plan. The offsets to these amounts are recorded as regulatory assets and liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
The following table presents the effect of mark-to-market commodity derivative instruments on PNM’s earnings, excluding income tax effects. Commodity derivatives had no impact on OCI for the periods presented.
 
Economic
Hedges
 Year Ended
December 31,
 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands)
PNMR and PNM     
Electric operating revenues$7,156
 $4,491
 $1,727
Cost of energy(293) 593
 1,109
Total gain$6,863
 $5,084
 $2,836
Commodity contract volume positions are presented in MMBTU for gas related contracts and in MWh for power related contracts. The table below presents PNMR’s and PNM’s net buy (sell) volume positions:
 Economic Hedges
 MMBTU MWh
December 31, 2015   
PNMR and PNM577,481
 (3,405,843)
December 31, 2014   
PNMR and PNM650,000
 (1,919,000)
 
Economic
Hedges
 Year Ended
December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In thousands)
Electric operating revenues$5,151
 $(53) $7,156
Cost of energy(5,386) (1,208) (293)
Total gain (loss)$(235) $(1,261) $6,863

In connection with managing its commodity risks, the Company enters into master agreements with certain counterparties. If the Company is in a net liability position under an agreement, some agreements provide that the counterparties can request collateral from the Company if the Company’s credit rating is downgraded; other agreements provide that the counterparty may request collateral to provide it with “adequate assurance” that the Company will perform; and others have no provision for collateral.
The table below presents information about the Company’s contingent requirements to provide collateral under commodity contracts having an objectively determinable collateral provision that are in net liability positions and are not fully collateralized with cash. Contractual liability represents commodity derivative contracts recorded at fair value on the balance sheet, determined on an individual contract basis without offsetting amounts for individual contracts that are in an asset position and could be offset under master netting agreements with the same counterparty. The table only reflects cash collateral that has been posted under the existing contracts and does not reflect letters of credit under the Company’s revolving credit facilities that have been issued as collateral. Net exposure is the net contractual liability for all contracts, including those designated as normal purchases and normal sales, offset by existing cash collateral and by any offsets available under master netting agreements, including both asset and liability positions.
Contingent Feature –
Credit Rating Downgrade
 
Contractual
Liability
 
Existing Cash
Collateral
 Net Exposure
  (In thousands)
December 31, 2015      
PNMR and PNM $839
 $
 $839
December 31, 2014      
PNMR and PNM $1,686
 $
 $167
Sale of Power from PVNGS Unit 3
Because PNM’s 134 MW share of Unit 3 at PVNGS is not currently included in retail rates, that unit’s power is being sold in the wholesale market. PNM sells power from its interest in PVNGS Unit 3 at market prices. As of December 31, 2015, PNM had contracted to sell 100% of PVNGS Unit 3 output through 2017, at market price plus a premium.  Through hedging arrangements

B-B - 51

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

Commodity contract volume positions are presented in MMBTU for gas related contracts and in MWh for power related contracts. The table below presents PNM’s net buy (sell) volume positions:
 Economic Hedges
 MMBTU MWh
December 31, 2017100,000
 
December 31, 2016254,100
 (2,471,600)

PNM has contingent requirements to provide collateral under commodity contracts having an objectively determinable collateral provision that are accountedin net liability positions and are not fully collateralized with cash. In connection with managing its commodity risks, PNM enters into master agreements with certain counterparties. If PNM is in a net liability position under an agreement, some agreements provide that the counterparties can request collateral if PNM’s credit rating is downgraded; other agreements provide that the counterparty may request collateral to provide it with “adequate assurance” that PNM will perform; and others have no provision for as economic hedges,collateral. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, PNM has established fixed rates, which average approximately $26 per MWh, for substantially all of the sales through 2016. There are currentlyhad no hedging arrangementssuch contracts in place for the 2017 sales.a net liability position.
Non-Derivative Financial Instruments
The carrying amounts reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheets approximate fair value for cash, receivables, and payables due to the short period of maturity. Available-for-sale securities are carried at fair value. Available-for-sale securities for PNMR and PNM consist of PNM assets held in the NDT for its share of decommissioning costs of PVNGS and a trusttrusts for PNM’s share of post-termfinal reclamation costs related to the coal mines serving SJGS and Four Corners (Note 16). At December 31, 20152017 and 2014,2016, the fair value of available-for-sale securities included $249.1$293.7 million and $244.6$253.9 million for the NDT and $9.9$29.8 million and $5.5$19.1 million for the mine reclamation trust.trusts. The fair value and gross unrealized gains of investments in available-for-sale securities are presented in the following table.
December 31, 2015 December 31, 2014December 31, 2017 December 31, 2016
Unrealized
 Gains
 Fair Value 
Unrealized
 Gains
 Fair Value
Unrealized
 Gains
 Fair Value 
Unrealized
 Gains
 Fair Value
PNMR and PNM  (In thousands)  
  (In thousands)  
Cash and cash equivalents$
 $10,700
 $
 $8,276
$
 $52,636
 $
 $23,683
Equity securities:              
Domestic value11,610
 44,505
 17,418
 45,340
4,011
 40,032
 1,135
 34,796
Domestic growth11,163
 61,078
 21,354
 74,053
3,995
 35,456
 3,032
 47,595
International and other1,569
 27,961
 156
 16,599
6,810
 45,867
 2,029
 27,481
Fixed income securities:              
U.S. Government178
 27,880
 903
 22,563
273
 34,317
 115
 40,962
Municipals3,672
 58,576
 5,851
 68,973
1,225
 48,076
 585
 43,789
Corporate and other628
 28,342
 666
 14,341
1,714
 67,140
 553
 54,671
$28,820
 $259,042
 $46,348
 $250,145
$18,028
 $323,524
 $7,449
 $272,977

Due to the funded status of the nuclear decommissioning trust and overall market performance, PNM began to re-balance the decommissioning investment portfolio in late 2017 to increase the percentage of the investments in fixed income (debt) securities to approximately 85%. The portfolio re-balancing was completed in early 2018.

The proceeds and gross realized gains and losses on the disposition of available-for-sale securities for PNMR and PNM are shown in the following table. Realized gains and losses are determined by specific identification of costs of securities sold. Gross realized losses shown below exclude the change(increase)/decrease in realized impairment losses of $(4.3)$3.3 million, $(0.7)$(1.2) million, and $0.6$(4.3) million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 2013.2015. See New Accounting Pronouncements in Note 1.

B - 52

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Proceeds from sales$252,174
 $117,989
 $271,140
$637,492
 $522,601
 $252,174
Gross realized gains$29,663
 $15,162
 $14,308
$36,896
 $46,116
 $29,663
Gross realized (losses)$(9,259) $(3,964) $(4,298)$(12,993) $(25,430) $(9,259)
Held-to-maturity securities are those investments in debt securities that the Company has the ability and intent to hold until maturity. Held-to-maturityAt December 31, 2017 and 2016, PNMR’s held-to-maturity securities consist of the investment in PVNGS lessor notes and certain items within other investments.Westmoreland Loan.
The Company has no available-for-sale or held-to-maturity securities for which carrying value exceeds fair value. There are no impairments considered to be “other than temporary” that are included in AOCI and not recognized in earnings.

B- 52

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

At December 31, 20152017, the available-for-sale and held-to-maturity debt securities had the following final maturities:
Fair ValueFair Value
Available-for-Sale Held-to-MaturityAvailable-for-Sale Held-to-Maturity
PNMR and PNM PNMR PNMPNMR and PNM PNMR
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Within 1 year$3,858
 $8,947
 $8,947
$4,460
 $
After 1 year through 5 years24,136
 665
 
32,693
 66,588
After 5 years through 10 years26,401
 
 
48,681
 
After 10 years through 15 years10,843
 
 
5,934
 
After 15 years through 20 years10,815
 
 
11,983
 
After 20 years38,745
 
 
45,782
 
$114,798
 $9,612
 $8,947
$149,533
 $66,588
Fair Value Disclosures
The Company determines the fair values of its derivative and other financial instruments based on the hierarchy established in GAAP, which requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. GAAP describes three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the reporting entity has the ability to access at the measurement date. Level 2 inputs are inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the asset or liability. Level 3 inputs used in determining fair values for the Company consist of internal valuation models. The Company records any transfers between fair value hierarchy levels as of the end of each calendar quarter. There were no transfers between levels during the years ended December 31, 20152017 and 2014.2016.
For available-for-sale securities, Level 2 fair values are provided by the trustee utilizing a pricing service. The pricing provider predominantly uses the market approach using bid side market value based upon a hierarchy of information for specific securities or securities with similar characteristics. For commodity derivatives, Level 2 fair values are determined based on market observable inputs, which are validated using multiple broker quotes, including forward price, volatility, and interest rate curves to establish expectations of future prices. Credit valuation adjustments are made for estimated credit losses based on the overall exposure to each counterparty. For the Company’s long-term debt, Level 2 fair values are provided by an external pricing service. The pricing service primarily utilizes quoted prices for similar debt in active markets when determining fair value. For investments categorized as Level 3, primarily the PVNGS lessor notes and certain items in other investments,Westmoreland Loan, fair values were determined by discounted cash flow models that take into consideration discount rates that are observable for similar types of assets and liabilities. Management of the Company independently verifies the information provided by pricing services.
Items recorded at fair value on the Consolidated Balance Sheets are presented below by level of the fair value hierarchy. There were no Level 3 fair value measurements at December 31, 2015 and 2014 for items recorded at fair value.

B-B - 53

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 2013

2015
   GAAP Fair Value Hierarchy
 Total Quoted Prices in Active Market for Identical Assets (Level 1) Significant Other Observable Inputs
(Level 2)
December 31, 2015  (In thousands)
PNMR and PNM     
Available-for-sale securities     
Cash and cash equivalents$10,700
 $10,700
 $
Equity securities:     
Domestic value44,505
 44,505
 
Domestic growth61,078
 61,078
 
International and other27,961
 27,961
 
Fixed income securities:
    
U.S. Government27,880
 26,608
 1,272
Municipals58,576
 
 58,576
Corporate and other28,342
 6,500
 21,842
 $259,042
 $177,352
 $81,690
      
Commodity derivative assets$6,435
 $
 $6,435
Commodity derivative liabilities(1,859) 
 (1,859)
Net$4,576
 $
 $4,576

   GAAP Fair Value Hierarchy
 Total Quoted Prices in Active Market for Identical Assets (Level 1) Significant Other Observable Inputs
(Level 2)
December 31, 2014  (In thousands)
PNMR and PNM     
Available-for-sale securities     
Cash and cash equivalents$8,276
 $8,276
 $
Equity securities:     
Domestic value45,340
 45,340
 
Domestic growth74,053
 74,053
 
International and other16,599
 16,599
 
Fixed income securities:     
U.S. Government22,563
 20,808
 1,755
Municipals68,973
 
 68,973
Corporate and other14,341
 4,843
 9,498
 $250,145
 $169,919
 $80,226
      
Commodity derivative assets$11,232
 $
 $11,232
Commodity derivative liabilities(1,686) 
 (1,686)
Net$9,546
 $
 $9,546
The carrying amounts and fair values of investments in PVNGS lessor notes, other investments, and long-term debt, which are notItems recorded at fair value by PNM on the Consolidated Balance Sheets are presented below:below by level of the fair value hierarchy. There were no Level 3 fair value measurements at December 31, 2017 and 2016 for items recorded at fair value.

B-
   GAAP Fair Value Hierarchy
 Total Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1) Significant Other Observable Inputs
(Level 2)
   (In thousands)
December 31, 2017     
Available-for-sale securities     
Cash and cash equivalents$52,636
 $52,636
 $
Equity securities:     
Domestic value40,032
 40,032
 
Domestic growth35,456
 35,456
 
International and other45,867
 42,332
 3,535
Fixed income securities:
    
U.S. Government34,317
 33,645
 672
Municipals48,076
 
 48,076
Corporate and other67,140
 
 67,140
 $323,524
 $204,101
 $119,423
      
Commodity derivative assets$4,644
 $
 $4,644
Commodity derivative liabilities(4,738) 
 (4,738)
Net$(94) $
 $(94)
December 31, 2016  
Available-for-sale securities     
Cash and cash equivalents$23,683
 $23,683
 $
Equity securities:     
Domestic value34,796
 34,796
 
Domestic growth47,595
 47,595
 
International and other27,481
 27,481
 
Fixed income securities:     
U.S. Government40,962
 39,723
 1,239
Municipals43,789
 
 43,789
Corporate and other54,671
 23,158
 31,513
 $272,977
 $196,436
 $76,541
      
Commodity derivative assets$5,224
 $
 $5,224
Commodity derivative liabilities(2,339) 
 (2,339)
Net$2,885
 $
 $2,885

B - 54

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

The carrying amounts and fair values of investments in the Westmoreland Loan, other investments, and long-term debt, which are not recorded at fair value on the Consolidated Balance Sheets are presented below:
    GAAP Fair Value Hierarchy    GAAP Fair Value Hierarchy
Carrying
Amount
 Fair Value Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Carrying
Amount
 Fair Value Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1) Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2) 
Significant Unobservable Inputs
(Level 3)
December 31, 2015(In thousands)
December 31, 2017(In thousands)
PNMR                  
Long-term debt$2,091,948
 $2,264,869
 $
 $2,264,869
 $
$2,437,645
 $2,554,836
 $
 $2,554,836
 $
Investment in PVNGS lessor notes$8,587
 $8,947
 $
 $
 $8,947
Westmoreland Loan$56,640
 $66,588
 $
 $
 $66,588
Other investments$604
 $1,269
 $604
 $
 $665
$503
 $503
 $503
 $
 $
PNM                  
Long-term debt$1,580,677
 $1,703,209
 $
 $1,703,209
 $
$1,657,910
 $1,727,135
 $
 $1,727,135
 $
Investment in PVNGS lessor notes$8,587
 $8,947
 $
 $
 $8,947
Other investments$366
 $366
 $366
 $
 $
$283
 $283
 $283
 $
 $
TNMP                  
Long-term debt$361,411
 $411,661
 $
 $411,661
 $
$480,620
 $527,563
 $
 $527,563
 $
Other investments$238
 $238
 $238
 $
 $
$220
 $220
 $220
 $
 $
                  
December 31, 2014         
December 31, 2016         
PNMR                  
Long-term debt$1,962,385
(1) 
$2,173,117
 $
 $2,173,117
 $
$2,392,712
 $2,540,693
 $
 $2,540,693
 $
Investment in PVNGS lessor notes$31,232
 $32,836
 $
 $
 $32,836
Westmoreland Loan$95,000
 $100,893
 $
 $
 $100,893
Other investments$1,762
 $2,375
 $639
 $
 $1,736
$547
 $1,164
 $547
 $
 $617
PNM                  
Long-term debt$1,482,537
(1) 
$1,624,222
 $
 $1,624,222
 $
$1,631,369
 $1,730,157
 $
 $1,730,157
 $
Investment in PVNGS lessor notes$31,232
 $32,836
 $
 $
 $32,836
Other investments$397
 $397
 $397
 $
 $
$316
 $316
 $316
 $
 $
TNMP                  
Long-term debt$361,241
(1) 
$427,356
 $
 $427,356
 $
$420,875
 $468,329
 $
 $468,329
 $
Other investments$242
 $242
 $242
 $
 $
$231
 $231
 $231
 $
 $

(1)
See Note 6 for an explanation of the adjustments made to the December 31, 2014 carrying value of long-term debt in order to conform to current-year presentation.

Investments Held by Employee Benefit Plans
As discussed in Note 12, PNM and TNMP have trusts that hold investment assets for their pension and other postretirement benefit plans. The fair value of the assets held by the trusts impacts the determination of the funded status of each plan (Note 12), but the assets are not reflected on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. Both the PNM Pension Plan and the TNMP Pension Plan hold units of participation in the PNM Resources, Inc. Master Trust (the “PNMR Master Trust”), which was established for the investment of assets of the pension plans. The Company is contemplating changing its investment allocation targets by decreasing the fixed income investments used to match pension liabilities from 65% to 50% beginning in 2018.

On May 2, 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-07, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820) - Disclosures for Investments in Certain Entities That Calculate Net Asset Value per Share (or Its Equivalent), which removed the requirement to categorize investments within the fair value hierarchy for which fair value was measured usingGAAP provides a practical expedient provided under GAAP that allows the net asset value per share to be used as fair value for investments in certain entities that do not have readily determinable fair values and are considered to be investment companies.  Fair values for alternative investments held by the PNMR Master Trust are valued using this practical expedient. As permitted under the ASU, the Company adopted it as of December 31, 2015. The ASU requiresUnder GAAP, investments for which fair value is measured using that upon adoption it ispractical expedient are not required to be applied retrospectively to prior years. Accordingly, alternative investments are no longer categorized within the fair value hierarchy and disclosures for December 31, 2014 have been modified to be consistent with 2015.

B- 55

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

hierarchy. Level 2 and Level 3 fair values are provided by fund managers utilizing a pricing service. For level 2 fair values, the pricing provider predominately uses the market approach using bid side market value based upon a hierarchy of information for specific securities or securities with similar characteristics. Fair values of Level 2 investments in mutual funds are equal to net asset value as of year-end. Level 3 investments are comprised of corporate term loans. Alternative investments include private equity funds, hedge funds, and real estate funds. The private equity funds are not voluntarily redeemable. These investments are realized through periodic distributions occurring over a 10 to 15 year term after the initial investment. The real estate funds and hedge funds may

B - 55

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

be voluntarily redeemed, but are subject to redemption provisions that may result in the funds not being able to be redeemed in the near term. Audited financial statements are received for each fund and are reviewed by the Company annually.
The valuation of Level 3 investments and alternative investments requires significant judgment by the pricing provider due to the absence of quoted market values, changes in market conditions, and the long-term nature of the assets. The significant unobservable inputs include the trading multiples of public companies that are considered comparable to the company being valued, company specific issues, estimates of liquidation value, current operating performance and future expectations of performance, changes in market outlook and the financing environment, capitalization rates, discount rates, and cash flows. The fair values of investments held by the employee benefit plans are as follows:

B-
   GAAP Fair Value Hierarchy
 Total 
Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 
Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
December 31, 2017  (In thousands)  
PNM Pension Plan       
Participation in PNMR Master Trust Investments:       
Investments categorized within fair value hierarchy$487,498
 $140,218
 $347,089
 $191
Uncategorized investments74,768
      
Total Master Trust Investments$562,266
      
        
TNMP Pension Plan       
Participation in PNMR Master Trust Investments:       
Investments categorized within fair value hierarchy$53,273
 $15,244
 $38,008
 $21
Uncategorized investments10,260
      
Total Master Trust Investments$63,533
      
        
PNM OPEB Plan       
Cash and cash equivalents$437
 $437
 $
 $
Equity securities:       
International funds10,636
 
 10,636
 
Domestic value10,816
 10,816
 
 
Domestic growth6,710
 6,710
 
 
Other funds31,660
 
 31,660
 
Fixed income securities:       
Mutual funds20,918
 20,918
 
 
 $81,177
 $38,881
 $42,296
 $
TNMP OPEB Plan       
Cash and cash equivalents$149
 $149
 $
 $
Equity securities:       
International funds1,597
 
 1,597
 
Domestic value293
 293
 
 
Domestic growth1,410
 1,410
 
 
Other funds4,011
 
 4,011
 
Fixed income securities:       
Mutual funds2,685
 2,685
 
 
 $10,145
 $4,537
 $5,608
 $

B - 56

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

  GAAP Fair Value Hierarchy  GAAP Fair Value Hierarchy
Total 
Quoted Prices in Active Market for Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 
Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
Total 
Quoted Prices in Active
Markets for Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 
Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
December 31, 2015  (In thousands)  
December 31, 2016(In thousands)
PNM Pension Plan              
Participation in PNMR Master Trust Investments:              
Investments categorized within fair value hierarchy$479,858
 $111,441
 $367,698
 $719
$467,965
 $129,624
 $337,989
 $352
Uncategorized investments78,461
      75,685
      
Total Master Trust Investments$558,319
      $543,650
      
              
TNMP Pension Plan              
Participation in PNMR Master Trust Investments:              
Investments categorized within fair value hierarchy$52,163
 $12,199
 $39,886
 $78
$50,901
 $14,447
 $36,416
 $38
Uncategorized investments9,968
      9,729
      
Total Master Trust Investments$62,131
      $60,630
      
              
PNM OPEB Plan              
Cash and cash equivalents$1,512
 $1,512
 $
 $
$2,567
 $2,567
 $
 $
Equity securities:              
International funds10,604
 
 10,604
 
9,300
 
 9,300
 
Domestic value9,367
 9,367
 
 
10,260
 10,260
 
 
Domestic growth5,894
 5,894
 
 
6,338
 6,338
 
 
Other funds28,419
 
 28,419
 
26,405
 
 26,405
 
Fixed income securities:         
    
Mutual funds18,343
 18,343
 
 
18,959
 18,959
 
 
$74,139
 $35,116
 $39,023
 $
$73,829
 $38,124
 $35,705
 $
TNMP OPEB Plan              
Cash and cash equivalents$128
 $128
 $
 $
$308
 $308
 $
 $
Equity securities:              
International funds1,310
 
 1,310
 
1,279
 
 1,279
 
Domestic value367
 367
 
 
449
 449
 
 
Domestic growth1,013
 1,013
 
 
1,089
 1,089
 
 
Other funds3,397
 
 3,397
 
3,060
 
 3,060
 
Fixed income securities:              
Mutual funds3,075
 3,075
 
 
2,593
 2,593
 
 
$9,290
 $4,583
 $4,707
 $
$8,778
 $4,439
 $4,339
 $


B-B - 57

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

The fair values of investments in the PNMR Master Trust are as follows:
   GAAP Fair Value Hierarchy
 Total 
Quoted Prices in Active
Market for Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 
Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
December 31, 2014(In thousands)
PNM Pension Plan       
Participation in PNMR Master Trust Investments:       
Investments categorized within fair value hierarchy$523,142
 $123,668
 $398,819
 $655
Uncategorized investments64,970
      
Total Master Trust Investments$588,112
      
        
TNMP Pension Plan       
Participation in PNMR Master Trust Investments:       
Investments categorized within fair value hierarchy$59,320
 $14,823
 $44,425
 $72
Uncategorized investments9,887
      
Total Master Trust Investments$69,207
      
        
PNM OPEB Plan       
Cash and cash equivalents$1,242
 $1,242
 $
 $
Equity securities:       
International funds10,332
 
 10,332
 
Domestic value8,365
 8,365
 
 
Domestic growth5,960
 5,960
 
 
Other funds30,997
 
 30,997
 
Fixed income securities:  
    
Mutual funds22,122
 22,122
 
 
 $79,018
 $37,689
 $41,329
 $
TNMP OPEB Plan       
Cash and cash equivalents$168
 $168
 $
 $
Equity securities:       
International funds1,277
 
 1,277
 
Domestic value403
 403
 
 
Domestic growth1,024
 1,024
 
 
Other funds3,790
 
 3,790
 
Fixed income securities:       
Mutual funds3,549
 3,549
 
 
 $10,211
 $5,144
 $5,067
 $
   GAAP Fair Value Hierarchy
 Total 
Quoted Prices
in Active Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 
Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
December 31, 2017(In thousands)
PNMR Master Trust       
Cash and cash equivalents$7,697
 $7,697
 $
 $
Equity securities:       
International42,048
 
 42,048
 
Domestic value37,026
 37,026
 
 
Domestic growth19,136
 19,136
 
 
Other funds25,099
 
 25,099
 
Fixed income securities:       
Corporate215,535
 
 215,323
 212
U.S. Government117,572
 91,603
 25,969
 
Municipals11,438
 
 11,438
 
Other funds65,220
 
 65,220
 
Total investments categorized within fair value hierarchy540,771
 $155,462
 $385,097
 $212
Uncategorized investments:       
Private equity funds22,281
      
Hedge funds45,615
      
Real estate funds17,132
      
 $625,799
      
December 31, 2016 
PNMR Master Trust       
Cash and cash equivalents$20,503
 $20,503
 $
 $
Equity securities:       
International38,401
 
 38,401
 
Domestic value36,036
 36,036
 
 
Domestic growth18,484
 18,484
 
 
Other funds27,532
 
 27,532
 
Fixed income securities:       
Corporate205,419
 
 205,029
 390
U.S. Government94,359
 69,048
 25,311
 
Municipals13,970
 
 13,970
 
Other funds64,162
 
 64,162
 
Total investments categorized within fair value hierarchy518,866
 $144,071
 $374,405
 $390
Uncategorized investments:       
Private equity funds27,060
      
Hedge funds42,070
      
Real estate funds16,284
      
 $604,280
      


B-B - 58

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 2013

The fair values of investments in the PNMR Master Trust are as follows:
2015
   GAAP Fair Value Hierarchy
 Total 
Quoted Prices
in Active Market for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 
Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
December 31, 2015(In thousands)
PNMR Master Trust       
Cash and cash equivalents$14,525
 $14,525
 $
 $
Equity securities:       
International36,675
 
 36,675
 
Domestic value34,769
 34,769
 
 
Domestic growth25,407
 25,407
 
 
Other funds30,531
 
 30,531
 
Fixed income securities:       
Corporate214,218
 
 213,421
 797
U.S. Government98,138
 48,936
 49,202
 
Municipals16,647
 
 16,647
 
Other funds61,111
 3
 61,108
 
Total investments categorized within fair value hierarchy532,021
 $123,640
 $407,584
 $797
Uncategorized investments:       
Private equity funds32,333
      
Hedge funds40,731
      
Real estate funds15,365
      
 $620,450
      
December 31, 2014 
PNMR Master Trust       
Cash and cash equivalents$15,645
 $15,645
 $
 $
Equity securities:       
International23,282
 
 23,282
 
Domestic value41,778
 41,778
 
 
Domestic growth28,370
 28,370
 
 
Other funds29,719
 
 29,719
 
Fixed income securities:       
Corporate242,742
 
 242,015
 727
U.S. Government106,634
 52,537
 54,097
 
Municipals20,156
 
 20,156
 
Other funds74,136
 161
 73,975
 
Total investments categorized within fair value hierarchy582,462
 $138,491
 $443,244
 $727
Uncategorized investments:       
Private equity funds37,220
      
Hedge funds23,876
      
Real estate funds13,761
      
 $657,319
      


B- 59

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

A reconciliation of the changes in Level 3 fair value measurements is as follows:
Fixed Income - CorporateFixed Income - Corporate
PNMR Master TrustPNM Pension TNMP Pension Total Master TrustPNM Pension TNMP Pension Total Master Trust
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2013$160
 $16
 $176
Balance at December 31, 2015$719
 $78
 $797
Actual return on assets sold during the period
 
 
1
 
 1
Actual return on assets still held at period end(18) (2) (20)19
 2
 21
Purchases546
 62
 608

 
 
Sales(33) (4) (37)(387) (42) (429)
Balance at December 31, 2014655
 72
 727
Balance at December 31, 2016352
 38
 390
Actual return on assets sold during the period
 
 
1
 
 1
Actual return on assets still held at period end(1) 
 (1)(7) (1) (8)
Purchases177
 17
 194
92
 10
 102
Sales(112) (11) (123)(247) (26) (273)
Balance at December 31, 2015$719
 $78
 $797
Balance at December 31, 2017$191
 $21
 $212

(9)Variable Interest Entities
GAAP determines how an enterprise evaluates and accounts for its involvement with variable interest entities, focusing primarily on whether the enterprise has the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of a variable interest entity (“VIE”). GAAP also requires continual reassessment of the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity.VIE.
 
Valencia

PNM has a PPA to purchase all of the electric capacity and energy from Valencia, a 158 MW natural gas-fired power plant near Belen, New Mexico, through May 2028. A third-partythird party built, owns, and operates the facility while PNM is the sole purchaser of the electricity generated. The total construction cost for the facility was $90.0 million. PNM estimates that the plant will typically operate during peak periods of energy demand in summer. PNM is obligated to pay fixed operationsoperation and maintenance and capacity charges in addition to variable operation and maintenance charges under this PPA. For the years ended December 31, 20152017, 20142016, and 20132015, PNM paid $17.519.6 million, $19.119.3 million, and $18.919.2 million for fixed charges and $1.51.3 million, $1.21.1 million, and $1.21.6 million for variable charges. PNM does not have any other financial obligations related to Valencia. The assets of Valencia can only be used to satisfy its obligations of Valencia and creditors of Valencia do not have any recourse against PNM’s assets. During the term of the PPA, PNM has the option, under certain conditions, to purchase and own up to 50% of the plant or the VIE. The PPA specifies that the purchase price would be the greater of 50% of book value reduced by related indebtedness or 50% of fair market value.
PNM sources fuel for the plant, controls when the facility operates through its dispatch, and receives the entire output of the plant, which factors directly and significantly impact the economic performance of Valencia. Therefore, PNM has concluded that the third partythird-party entity that owns Valencia is a variable interest entityVIE and that PNM is the primary beneficiary of the entity under GAAP since PNM has the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of Valencia and will absorb the majority of the variability in the cash flows of the plant. As the primary beneficiary, PNM consolidates the entityValencia in its financial statements. Accordingly, the assets, liabilities, operating expenses, and cash flows of Valencia are included in the consolidated financial statementsConsolidated Financial Statements of PNM although PNM has no legal ownership interest or voting control of the variable interest entity.VIE. The assets and liabilities of Valencia set forth below are immaterial to PNM and, therefore, not shown separately on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The owner’s equity and net income of Valencia are considered attributable to non-controlling interest.

B-B - 59

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

Summarized financial information for Valencia is as follows:
Results of Operations
 Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In thousands)
Operating revenues$20,887
 $20,371
 $20,687
Operating expenses(5,870) (5,852) (5,777)
Earnings attributable to non-controlling interest$15,017
 $14,519
 $14,910
Financial Position
 December 31,
 2017 2016
 (In thousands)
Current assets$2,688
 $2,551
Net property, plant and equipment64,109
 66,947
Total assets66,797
 69,498
Current liabilities602
 578
Owners’ equity – non-controlling interest$66,195
 $68,920

Westmoreland San Juan LLC (“WSJ”) and SJCC

As discussed in the subheading Coal Supply in Note 16, PNM purchases coal for SJGS from SJCC under a coal supply agreement (“SJGS CSA”). That section includes information on the acquisition of SJCC by WSJ, a subsidiary of Westmoreland, on January 31, 2016, as well as a $125.0 million loan (the “Westmoreland Loan”) from NM Capital, a subsidiary of PNMR, to WSJ, which loan provided substantially all of the funds required for the SJCC purchase, and the issuance of $30.3 million in letters of credit to facilitate the issuance of reclamation bonds required in order for SJCC to mine coal to be supplied to SJGS. The Westmoreland Loan and the letters of credit support result in PNMR being considered to have a variable interest in WSJ, including its subsidiary, SJCC, since PNMR and NM Capital could be subject to possible loss in the event of a default by WSJ under the Westmoreland Loan and/or performance was required under the letter of credit support.  Principal payments under the Westmoreland Loan began on August 1, 2016 and are required quarterly thereafter. Interest is also paid quarterly beginning on May 3, 2016.

At December 31, 2017, the amount outstanding under the Westmoreland Loan was $56.6 million. In addition, interest receivable of $1.0 million is included in Other receivables. The Westmoreland Loan requires that all cash flows of WSJ, in excess of normal operating expenses, capital additions, and operating reserves, be utilized for principal and interest payments under the loan until it is fully repaid. As of February 20, 2018, the amount outstanding under the Westmoreland Loan was $51.0 million, reflecting the February 1, 2018 principal payment of $5.6 million. The Westmoreland Loan is secured by the assets of and the equity interests in SJCC. In the event of a default by WSJ, NM Capital would have the ability to take over the mining operations.  In such event, NM Capital would likely engage a third-party mining company to operate SJCC so that operations of the mine are not disrupted. The acquisition of SJCC for approximately $125.0 million on January 31, 2016 was an arm’s-length negotiated transaction between Westmoreland and BHP, which amount should approximate the fair value of SJCC at the date of acquisition. If WSJ were to default, NM Capital should be able to acquire assets of approximately the value of the Westmoreland Loan without a significant loss. Furthermore, PNMR considers the possibility of loss under the letters of credit support to be remote since the purpose of posting the bonds is to provide assurance that SJCC performs the required reclamation of the mine site in accordance with applicable regulations and all reclamation costs are reimbursable under the SJGS CSA. Also, much of the mine reclamation activities will not be performed until after the expiration of the SJGS CSA and the final maturity of the Westmoreland Loan. In addition, each of the SJGS participants has established and funds a trust to meet its future reclamation obligations.

Both WSJ and SJCC are considered to be VIEs.  PNMR’s analysis of these arrangements concluded that Westmoreland, as the parent of WSJ, has the ability to direct the SJCC mining operations, which is the factor that most significantly impacts the economic performance of WSJ and SJCC.  NM Capital’s rights under the Westmoreland Loan are the typical protective rights of

B - 60

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

Summarized financial information for Valencia is as follows:
Results of Operations
 Year Ended December 31,
 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands)
Operating revenues$20,687
 $20,247
 $20,166
Operating expenses(5,777) (6,120) (5,645)
Earnings attributable to non-controlling interest$14,910
 $14,127
 $14,521
Financial Position
 December 31,
 2015 2014
 (In thousands)
Current assets$2,588
 $2,513
Net property, plant and equipment69,784
 72,321
Total assets72,372
 74,834
Current liabilities965
 1,288
Owners’ equity – non-controlling interest$71,407
 $73,546

Duringa lender, but do not give NM Capital any oversight over mining operations unless there is a default under the termloan agreement. Other than PNM being able to ensure that coal is supplied in adequate quantities and of sufficient quality to provide the PPA,fuel necessary to operate SJGS in a normal manner, the mining operations are solely under the control of Westmoreland and its subsidiaries, including developing mining plans, hiring of personnel, and incurring operating and maintenance expenses. Neither PNMR nor PNM has any ability to direct or influence the optionmining operation.  Therefore, PNM’s involvement through the SJGS CSA is a protective right rather than a participating right and Westmoreland has the power to purchasedirect the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of SJCC.  The SJGS CSA requires SJCC to deliver coal required to fuel SJGS in exchange for payment of a set price per ton, which is escalated over time for inflation. If SJCC is able to mine more efficiently than anticipated, its economic performance will be improved.  Conversely, if SJCC cannot mine as efficiently as anticipated, its economic performance will be negatively impacted.  Accordingly, PNMR believes Westmoreland is the primary beneficiary of WSJ and, own up to 50% oftherefore, WSJ and SJCC are not consolidated by either PNMR or PNM. The amounts outstanding under the plant or the variable interest entity. The PPA specifies that the purchase price would be the greater of (i) 50% of book value reduced by related indebtedness or (ii) 50% of fair market value. On October 8, 2013, PNM notified the owner of Valencia that PNM may exercise the option to purchase 50% of the plant. As provided in the PPA, an appraisal process was initiated since the parties failed to reach agreement on fair market value within 60 days. Under the PPA, results of the appraisal process established the purchase price after which PNM was to determine in its sole discretion whether or not to exercise its option to purchase the 50% interest. The PPA also provides that the purchase price may be adjusted to reflect the period between the determination of the purchase priceWestmoreland Loan and the closing. The appraisal process determined the purchase price asletter of October 8, 2013credit support constitute PNMR’s maximum exposure to be $85.0 million, prior to any adjustment to reflect the period through the closing date. Approval of the NMPRC and FERC would be required, which process could take up to 15 months. On May 30, 2014, after evaluating its alternatives with respect to Valencia, PNM notified the owner of Valencia that PNM intended to purchase 50% of the plant, subject to certain conditions. PNM’s conditions include: agreeing on the purchase price, adjusted to reflect the period between October 8, 2013 and the closing; approval of the NMPRC, including specified ratemaking treatment, and FERC; approval of the Board and PNM’s board of directors; receipt of other necessary approvals and consents; and other customary closing conditions. PNM received a letter dated June 30, 2014loss from the owner of Valencia suggesting that the conditions set forth in PNM’s notification raise issues under the PPA. The owner of Valencia subsequently submitted a counter-proposal to PNM in April 2015. PNM is evaluating available options. PNM cannot predict if it will reach agreement with the owner of Valencia, if required regulatory and other approvals will be received, or if the purchase will be completed.VIEs.

PVNGS Leases

PNM is leasingleased portions of its interests in Units 1 and 2 of PVNGS under leases, which initially were scheduled to expire on January 15, 2015 for the four Unit 1 leases and January 15, 2016 for the four Unit 2 leases. See Note 7 for additional information regarding the leases and actions PNM has taken with respect to its renewal and purchase options. Each of the lease agreements was with a different trust whose beneficial owners were five different institutional investors. PNM is not the legal or tax owner of the leased assets. The beneficial owners of the trusts possess all of the voting control and pecuniary interests in the trusts. See Note 7 for additional information regarding the leases and actions PNM has taken with respect to its renewal and purchase options. At January 15, 2015, the four Unit 1 leases were extended. At January 15, 2016, one of the Unit 2 leases was extended and PNM purchased the assets underlying the other three Unit 2 leases. Prior to their exercise or expiration,See Note 17 for information concerning the fixed rate renewal options were considered to be variable interests in the trusts and resulted in the trusts being considered variable interest entities under GAAP. Upon execution of documents establishing termsNMPRC’s treatment of the asset purchases or lease extensions, the fixed rate renewal options ceased to exist as didpurchased assets and extended leases in PNM’s variable interest in the trusts.NM 2015 Rate Case. PNM is only obligated to make payments to the trusts for the scheduled semi-annual lease payments and has no other financial obligations or commitments to the trusts or the beneficial owners although PNM is

B- 61

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

responsible for all decommissioning obligations related to its entire interest in PVNGS both during and after termination of the leases. Creditors of the trusts have no recourse to PNM’s assets other than with respect to the contractual lease payments. PNM has no additional rights to the assets of the trusts other than the use of the leased assets. PNM has no assets or liabilities recorded on its Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the trusts other than accrued lease payments of $18.4 million and $26.08.3 million at December 31, 20152017 and 20142016, which are included in other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Prior to their exercise or expiration, the fixed rate renewal options were considered to be variable interests in the trusts and resulted in the trusts being considered variable interest entities under GAAP. Upon execution of documents establishing terms of the asset purchases or lease extensions, the fixed rate renewal options ceased to exist as did PNM’s variable interest in the trusts. PNM has evaluated the PVNGS lease arrangements, including actions taken with respect to the renewal and purchase options, referred to above, and concluded that it doesdid not have the power to direct the activities that most significantly impactimpacted the economic performance of the trusts and, therefore, iswas not the primary beneficiary of the trusts under GAAP. The significant factors considered in reaching this conclusion are:were: the periods covered by fixed price renewal options were significantly shorter than the anticipated remaining useful lives of the assets particularly since the operating licenses for the plants have beenwere extended for twenty20 years through 2045 for Unit 1 and 2046 for Unit 2; PNM’s only financial obligation to the trusts is to make the fixed lease payments and the payments do not vary based on the output of the plants or their performance; during the lease terms, the economic performance of the trusts is substantially fixed due to the fixed lease payments; PNM is only one of several participants in PVNGS and is not the operating agent for the plants, so does not significantly influence the day-to-day operations of the plants; furthermore, the operations of the plants, including plans for their decommissioning, are highly regulated by the NRC, leaving little room for the participants to operate the plants in a manner that impacts the economic performance of the trusts; the economic performance of the trusts at the end of the lease terms is dependent upon the fair value and remaining lives of the plants at that time, which are determined by factors such as power prices, outlook for nuclear power, and the impacts of potential carbon legislation or regulation, all which are outside of PNM’s control; and while PNM had some benefit from its renewal options, the vast majority of the value at the end of the leases willwould accrue to the beneficial owners of the trusts, particularly given increases in the value of existing nuclear generating facilities, which have no GHG, resulting from potential carbon legislation or regulation.
Rio Bravo, formerly known as Delta
PNM had a 20-year PPA expiring in 2020 covering the entire output of Delta, which was a variable interest under GAAP. PNM controlled the dispatch of the generating plant, which impacted the variable payments made under the PPA and impacted the economic performance of the entity that owned Delta. This arrangement was entered into prior to December 31, 2003 and PNM was unsuccessful in obtaining the information necessary to determine if it was the primary beneficiary of the entity that owned Delta, or to consolidate that entity if it were determined that PNM was the primary beneficiary. Accordingly, PNM was unable to make those determinations and, as provided in GAAP, accounted for this PPA as an operating lease.
In December 2012, PNM entered into an agreement with the owners of Delta under which PNM would purchase the entity that owned Delta. FERC approved the purchase on February 26, 2013 and the NMPRC approved the purchase on June 26, 2013. Closing was subject to the seller remedying specified operational, NERC compliance, and environmental issues, as well as other customary closing conditions. PNM closed on the purchase on July 17, 2014 and recorded the purchase as of that date. At closing, PNM made a cash payment of $22.8 million, which reflected an adjustment for working capital compared to a targeted working capital. Delta had project financing debt, amounting to $14.6 million at closing, which was retired at closing. PNM changed the name of the facility to Rio Bravo.
PNM recorded the acquisition as a business combination and reflected the requirements of the FERC Uniform System of Accounts since the purchased assets are subject to traditional rate regulation by the NMPRC and FERC. Accordingly, as of the acquisition date, PNM recorded plant in service of $58.1 million and accumulated depreciation of $23.5 million, reflecting the original cost of the facilities and the estimated economic life to PNM. PNM also recorded current assets of $3.6 million, deferred charges of $3.4 million, current liabilities of $0.3 million, and non-current regulatory liabilities of $3.4 million.
PNM made fixed and variable payments to Delta under the PPA. For the period from January 1, 2014 through July 17, 2014, PNM incurred fixed capacity charges of $3.5 million and variable energy charges of $0.6 million under the PPA. For the year ended December 31, 2013, PNM incurred fixed capacity charges of $6.4 million and variable energy charges of $1.8 million under the PPA. PNM recovered the variable energy charges through its FPPAC.
PNM began consolidating Rio Bravo at the date of the acquisition. Prior to the acquisition, consolidation of Delta would have been immaterial to the Consolidated Balance Sheets of PNMR and PNM. Since all of Delta’s revenues and expenses were attributable to its PPA arrangement with PNM, the primary impact of consolidating Delta to the Consolidated Statements of Earnings of PNMR and PNM would have been to reclassify Delta’s net earnings from operating expenses and reflect such amount as earnings attributable to a non-controlling interest, without any impact to net earnings attributable to PNMR and PNM.

B- 62B - 61

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

(10)Earnings and Dividends Per Share
In accordance with GAAP, dual presentation of basic and diluted earnings per share has been presented in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings of PNMR. Information regarding the computation of earnings per share and dividends per share is as follows:
 
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands, except per share amounts)(In thousands, except per share amounts)
Earnings Attributable to PNMR$15,640
 $116,254
 $100,507
Net Earnings Attributable to PNMR$79,874
 $116,849
 $15,640
Average Number of Common Shares:          
Outstanding during year79,654
 79,654
 79,654
79,654
 79,654
 79,654
Vested awards of restricted stock105
 134
 191
237
 104
 105
Average Shares – Basic79,759
 79,788
 79,845
79,891
 79,758
 79,759
Dilutive Effect of Common Stock Equivalents (1):
     
Dilutive Effect of Common Stock Equivalents:     
Stock options and restricted stock380
 491
 586
250
 374
 380
Average Shares – Diluted80,139
 80,279
 80,431
80,141
 80,132
 80,139
Net Earnings Per Share of Common Stock:     
Net Earnings Attributable to PNMR Per Share of Common Stock:     
Basic$0.20
 $1.46
 $1.26
$1.00
 $1.47
 $0.20
Diluted$0.20
 $1.45
 $1.25
$1.00
 $1.46
 $0.20
Dividends Declared per Common Share$0.820
 $0.755
 $0.680
$0.9925
 $0.9025
 $0.8200

(1)
Excludes out-of-the-money options for 2,100 shares of common stock at December 31, 2015. See Note 13.
 
(11)Income Taxes

Federal Income Tax Reform

On December 22, 2017, comprehensive changes in United States federal income taxes were enacted through legislation commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”). The Tax Act makes many significant modifications to the tax laws, including reducing the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% effective January 1, 2018. The Tax Act also eliminates federal bonus depreciation for utilities effective September 28, 2017 and, effective January 1, 2018, limits interest deductibility for non-utility businesses and limits the deductibility of certain officer compensation.

Although most of the provisions of the Tax Act are not effective until 2018, GAAP requires that some effects must be recognized in 2017. Under the asset and liability method of accounting for income taxes used by the Company, deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences of temporary differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. The deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using the enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which the temporary differences are expected to reverse. At the date of enactment of the Tax Act, the Company had net deferred tax liabilities for its regulated activities and net deferred tax assets for non-regulated activities. As a result of the change in the federal income tax rate, the Company re-measured and adjusted its deferred tax assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2017. The portion of that adjustment not related to PNM’s and TNMP’s regulated activities was recorded as a reduction in net deferred tax assets and an increase in income tax expense. The portion related to PNM’s and TNMP’s regulated activities was recorded as a reduction in net deferred tax liabilities and an increase in regulatory liabilities, based on the assumption that PNM and TNMP will be required to return the benefit to ratepayers over time. PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case (Note 17) reflects that assumption by including an amortization of the estimated benefit of the reduction in existing deferred federal income taxes as a reduction to customer rates over a twenty-one year period beginning in 2018. In addition, in January 2018, the PUCT issued an order requiring Texas utilities, including TNMP, to begin recording regulatory liabilities for the effects of the Tax Act with the stated purpose of reflecting those effects in the utility bills of Texas ratepayers.

B - 62

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

In December 2017, the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118, which provides guidance to address the application of GAAP to reflect the Tax Act in circumstances where all information and analysis of the Tax Act is not yet available or complete. This bulletin provides for up to a one-year period in which to complete the required analyses and accounting for the impacts of the Tax Act. The Company believes it has made reasonable estimates of the effects of the Tax Act and reflected the impacts in the Consolidated Financial Statements. However, the reported effects on the Company’s deferred tax assets and liabilities, regulatory assets and liabilities, and income tax expense are provisional and it is possible that changes to U.S. Treasury regulations, IRS interpretations of the provisions of the Tax Act, actions by the NMPRC, PUCT, and FERC, or the Company’s further analysis of historical records could cause these estimates to change.

The adjustments to deferred income taxes recorded as increases in regulatory liabilities and income tax expense as a result of the enactment of the Tax Act are presented below:
  PNM TNMP Corporate and Other Consolidated
  (In thousands)
Net increase in regulatory liabilities $402,501
 $146,451
 $
 $548,952
Net decrease in deferred income tax liabilities (deferred income tax assets) 372,895
 138,586
 (19,990) 491,491
Net deferred income tax expense $29,606
 $7,865
 $19,990
 $57,461

GAAP requires that the impacts of adjusting existing deferred tax assets and liabilities for a change in an income tax rate be recognized in income tax expense during the period of enactment, including impacts that are reflected in AOCI. This results in the tax effects of items within AOCI not reflecting the appropriate tax rate and being stranded in AOCI. In February 2018, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2018-02 - Income Statement - Reporting Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Reclassification of Certain Tax Effects from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income to address this issue by allowing entities to reclassify the income tax effects of the Tax Act on items within AOCI to retained earnings. The Company records in AOCI, net of income taxes, unamortized gains and losses related to PNM’s defined benefit pension plans to the extent not attributed to regulated operations, unrealized gains on PNM’s available-for-sale securities, and unrealized gains and losses on cash flow hedges related to PNMR’s interest rate swaps. When amounts are reclassified from AOCI to the Consolidated Statement of Earnings, the Company recognizes the related income tax expense (benefit) at the tax rate in effect at that time. As permitted by ASU 2018-02, as of December 31, 2017, the Company reclassified the stranded federal income tax effects of the Tax Act on items recorded in AOCI, resulting in a net increase in retained earnings of $17.6 million. See Note 19.
PNMR
PNMR’s income taxes consist of the following components:
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Current federal income tax$
 $(2,015) $
$
 $
 $
Current state income tax(1,376) (728) (917)(188) (527) (1,376)
Deferred federal income tax5,488
 59,814
 50,044
119,182
 60,892
 5,488
Deferred state income tax12,305
 14,831
 12,578
11,632
 3,886
 12,305
Amortization of accumulated investment tax credits(1,342) (2,164) (2,192)(286) (973) (1,342)
Total income taxes$15,075
 $69,738
 $59,513
$130,340
 $63,278
 $15,075


B-B - 63

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

PNMR’s provision for income taxes differed from the federal income tax computed at the statutory rate for each of the years shown. The differences are attributable to the following factors:
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Federal income tax at statutory rates$16,154
 $70,226
 $61,274
$79,016
 $68,311
 $16,154
Amortization of accumulated investment tax credits(1,342) (2,164) (2,192)(286) (973) (1,342)
Flow-through of depreciation items1,485
 1,344
 1,132
1,147
 1,227
 1,485
Earnings attributable to non-controlling interest in Valencia(5,218) (4,945) (5,082)(5,256) (5,082) (5,218)
State income tax, net of federal benefit(1,781) 5,723
 3,818
5,398
 4,537
 (1,781)
Impairment of state net operating loss carryforwards5,278
 3,129
 
819
 (311) 5,278
Impairment of state production tax credits3,092
 894
 3,880

 
 3,092
Allowance for equity funds used during construction(3,650) (1,947) (1,534)(3,331) (1,732) (3,650)
Reversal of deferred items related to BART at SJGS1,826
 
 

 
 1,826
Impairment of charitable contribution carryforward2,042
 
 
909
 
 2,042
Regulatory recovery of prior year impairments of state net operating loss carryforward, net of amortization(2,225) (1,877) 
Federal income tax rate change57,461
 
 
Excess tax benefits related to stock compensation awards(2,324) 
 
Other(2,811) (2,522) (1,783)(988) (822) (2,811)
Total income taxes$15,075
 $69,738
 $59,513
$130,340
 $63,278
 $15,075
Effective tax rate32.66% 34.76% 33.99%57.73% 32.42% 32.66%

The components of PNMR’s net accumulated deferred income tax liability were:
December 31,December 31,
2015 20142017 2016
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Deferred tax assets:      
Net operating loss$161,691
 $153,858
$98,301
 $160,901
Regulatory liabilities related to income taxes80,031
 78,858
189,501
 64,657
Federal tax credit carryforwards77,417
 54,748
71,849
 78,675
Shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 353,823
 
2,204
 53,434
Other70,749
 68,566
45,656
 75,805
Total deferred tax assets443,711
 356,030
407,511
 433,472
Deferred tax liabilities:      
Depreciation and plant related(1,027,047) (914,926)(690,909) (1,102,458)
Investment tax credit(56,589) (36,790)(55,731) (56,017)
Regulatory assets related to income taxes(71,054) (67,910)(61,956) (66,378)
CTC(16,151) (19,352)(5,670) (12,715)
Pension(65,226) (66,498)(56,070) (57,287)
Regulatory asset for shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3(31,887) 
Other(85,037) (115,282)(52,498) (79,267)
Total deferred tax liabilities(1,321,104) (1,220,758)(954,721) (1,374,122)
Net accumulated deferred income tax liabilities$(877,393) $(864,728)$(547,210) $(940,650)


B-B - 64

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

The following table reconciles the change in PNMR’s net accumulated deferred income tax liability to the deferred income tax benefit included in the Consolidated Statement of Earnings:
Year EndedYear Ended
December 31, 2015December 31, 2017
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Net change in deferred income tax liability per above table$12,665
$(393,440)
Change in tax effects of income tax related regulatory assets and liabilities(1,896)(16,444)
Tax effect of mark-to-market adjustments6,844
(4,724)
Tax effect of excess pension liability(607)(3,421)
Adjustment for uncertain income tax positions(8,576)2,677
Reclassification of unrecognized tax benefits8,576
(2,677)
Regulatory recovery of prior year impairments of state net operating loss carryforward, net of amortization(2,225)
Federal income tax rate change548,952
Cumulative effect adjustment for excess tax benefit related to stock compensation awards10,382
Alternative minimum tax carryforward reclassified to receivable(8,336)
Other(555)(216)
Deferred income taxes$16,451
$130,528
 
PNM
PNM’s income taxes (benefit) consist of the following components:
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Current federal income tax$(7,934) $(2,175) $(479)$118
 $(10,290) $(7,934)
Current state income tax(1,988) (979) (760)(1,112) (1,907) (1,988)
Deferred federal income tax(6,827) 45,890
 42,806
73,308
 49,123
 (6,827)
Deferred state income tax5,333
 12,061
 9,429
9,527
 4,969
 5,333
Amortization of accumulated investment tax credits(1,342) (2,164) (2,192)(286) (973) (1,342)
Total income taxes (benefit)$(12,758) $52,633
 $48,804
$81,555
 $40,922
 $(12,758)

PNM’s provision for income taxes (benefit) differed from the federal income tax computed at the statutory rate for each of the years shown. The differences are attributable to the following factors:

B-B - 65

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

PNM’s provision for income taxes (benefit) differed from the federal income tax computed at the statutory rate for each of the years shown. The differences are attributable to the following factors:
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Federal income tax (benefit) at statutory rates$(4,579) $53,930
 $53,018
$59,139
 $46,501
 $(4,579)
Amortization of accumulated investment tax credits(1,342) (2,164) (2,192)(286) (973) (1,342)
Flow-through of depreciation items1,465
 1,325
 1,115
1,103
 1,185
 1,465
Earnings attributable to non-controlling interest in Valencia(5,218) (4,945) (5,082)(5,256) (5,082) (5,218)
State income tax, net of federal benefit(2,162) 5,522
 6,202
4,926
 3,921
 (2,162)
Impairment of state net operating loss carryforwards3,619
 2,145
 
627
 (213) 3,619
Allowance for equity funds used during construction(3,650) (1,947) (1,534)(3,032) (1,457) (3,650)
Reversal of deferred items related to BART at SJGS1,826
 
 

 
 1,826
Reversal of deferred income taxes accrued at prior tax rates(737) (737) (737)
Regulatory recovery of prior year impairment of state net operating loss carryforward, net of amortization(2,225) (1,877) 
Federal income tax rate change29,606
 
 
Allocation of excess tax benefit related to stock compensation awards(1,708) 
 
Other(1,980) (496) (1,986)(1,339) (1,083) (2,717)
Total income taxes (benefit)$(12,758) $52,633
 $48,804
$81,555
 $40,922
 $(12,758)
Effective tax rate97.52% 34.16% 32.22%48.27% 30.80% 97.52%

The components of PNM’s net accumulated deferred income tax liability were:
December 31,December 31,
2015 20142017 2016
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Deferred tax assets:      
Net operating loss$116,693
 $108,505
$67,719
 $117,922
Regulatory liabilities related to income taxes75,889
 74,293
152,059
 60,940
Federal tax credit carryforwards57,928
 35,259
60,085
 59,156
Shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 353,823
 
2,204
 53,434
Other41,210
 35,681
23,801
 41,700
Total deferred tax assets345,543
 253,738
305,868
 333,152
Deferred tax liabilities:      
Depreciation and plant related(828,926) (733,519)(544,270) (891,578)
Investment tax credit(56,589) (36,790)(55,731) (56,017)
Regulatory assets related to income taxes(61,018) (57,637)(52,392) (56,577)
Pension(58,070) (58,474)(51,774) (50,134)
Regulatory asset for shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3(31,887) 
Other(37,324) (70,714)(18,826) (27,512)
Total deferred tax liabilities(1,041,927) (957,134)(754,880) (1,081,818)
Net accumulated deferred income tax liabilities$(696,384) $(703,396)$(449,012) $(748,666)


B-B - 66

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

The following table reconciles the change in PNM’s net accumulated deferred income tax liability to the deferred income tax benefit included in the Consolidated Statement of Earnings:
Year Ended
December 31, 2015Year Ended
(In thousands)December 31, 2017
 (In thousands)
Net change in deferred income tax liability per above table$(7,012)$(299,654)
Change in tax effects of income tax related regulatory assets and liabilities(1,784)(16,332)
Tax effect of mark-to-market adjustments6,872
(4,110)
Tax effect of excess pension liability(607)(3,421)
Adjustment for uncertain income tax positions(8,576)2,614
Reclassification of unrecognized tax benefits8,576
(2,614)
Regulatory recovery of prior year impairment of state net operating loss carryforward, net of amortization(2,225)
Federal income tax rate change402,501
Allocation of cumulative effect adjustment for excess tax benefit related to stock compensation awards7,770
Other(305)(1,980)
Deferred income taxes$(2,836)$82,549
TNMP
TNMP’s income taxes consist of the following components:
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Current federal income tax$1,603
 $35
 $(4,957)$2,472
 $9,445
 $1,603
Current state income tax1,639
 1,939
 1,916
1,765
 1,729
 1,639
Deferred federal income tax20,904
 20,577
 20,688
27,304
 12,690
 20,904
Deferred state income tax(21) (28) (26)(29) (28) (21)
Total income taxes$24,125
 $22,523
 $17,621
$31,512
 $23,836
 $24,125
 
TNMP’s provision for income taxes differed from the federal income tax computed at the statutory rate for each of the periods shown. The differences are attributable to the following factors:
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Federal income tax at statutory rates$23,131
 $21,115
 $16,349
$23,475
 $22,928
 $23,131
State income tax, net of federal benefit1,065
 1,257
 1,247
1,198
 1,132
 1,065
Federal income tax rate change7,865
 
 
Allocation of excess tax benefit related to stock compensation awards(616) 
 
Other(71) 151
 25
(410) (224) (71)
Total income taxes$24,125
 $22,523
 $17,621
$31,512
 $23,836
 $24,125
Effective tax rate36.50% 37.33% 37.72%46.98% 36.39% 36.5%


B-B - 67

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

The components of TNMP’s net accumulated deferred income tax liability at December 31, were:
December 31,December 31,
2015 20142017 2016
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Deferred tax assets:      
Regulatory liabilities related to income taxes$4,141
 $4,565
$43,103
 $3,718
Other6,702
 13,429
3,762
 6,016
Total deferred tax assets10,843
 17,994
46,865
 9,734
Deferred tax liabilities:      
Depreciation and plant related(189,322) (174,510)(135,647) (201,017)
CTC(16,151) (19,352)(5,670) (12,715)
Regulatory assets related to income taxes(10,036) (10,273)(9,564) (9,800)
Loss on reacquired debt(12,392) (12,846)(6,890) (11,937)
Pension(4,296) (7,153)
AMS(7,707) (8,928)
Other(15,733) (12,560)(3,506) (3,969)
Total deferred tax liabilities(243,634) (229,541)(173,280) (255,519)
Net accumulated deferred income tax liabilities$(232,791) $(211,547)$(126,415) $(245,785)

The following table reconciles the change in TNMP’s net accumulated deferred income tax liability to the deferred income tax benefit included in the Consolidated Statement of Earnings:
Year EndedYear Ended
December 31, 2015December 31, 2017
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Net change in deferred income tax liability per above table$21,244
$(119,370)
Change in tax effects of income tax related regulatory assets and liabilities(111)(112)
Federal income tax rate change146,451
Other(250)306
Deferred income taxes$20,883
$27,275
 

B-B - 68

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

Other Disclosures

GAAP requires that the Company recognize only the impact of tax positions that, based on their technical merits, are more likely than not to be sustained upon an audit by the taxing authority. A reconciliation of unrecognized tax benefits (expenses) is as follows:
PNMR PNM TNMPPNMR PNM TNMP
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2012$19,198
 $10,382
 $6,796
Additions based on tax positions related to 2013(54) (54) 
Additions (reductions) for tax positions of prior years745
 745
 
Settlement payments
 
 
Balance at December 31, 201319,889
 11,073
 6,796
Additions based on tax positions related to 2014623
 623
 
Additions (reductions) for tax positions of prior years(5,481) 532
 (6,796)
Settlement payments
 
 
Balance at December 31, 201415,031
 12,228
 
$15,031
 $12,228
 $
Additions based on tax positions related to 20151,214
 1,214
 
1,214
 1,214
 
Additions (reductions) for tax positions of prior years(9,790) (9,790) 
(9,790) (9,790) 
Settlement payments
 
 

 
 
Balance at December 31, 2015$6,455
 $3,652
 $
6,455
 3,652
 
Additions based on tax positions related to 2016242
 242
 
Additions (reductions) for tax positions of prior years55
 55
 
Settlement payments
 
 
Balance at December 31, 20166,752
 3,949
 
Additions based on tax positions related to 2017262
 262
 
Additions (reductions) for tax positions of prior years2,415
 2,352
 63
Settlement payments
 
 
Balance at December 31, 2017$9,429
 $6,563
 $63

Included in the balance of unrecognized tax benefits at December 31, 20152017 are $5.98.9 million, $6.1 million, and $3.1$0.1 million of unrecognized tax benefits that, if recognized, would affect the effective tax rate for PNMR, PNM, and PNM.TNMP. The Company does not anticipate that any unrecognized tax expenses or unrecognized tax benefits will be reduced or settled in 20162018.

In 2016, the Company undertook an analysis of interest income and interest expense applicable to federal income tax matters. The analysis encompassed the impacts of IRS examinations, amended income tax returns, and filings for carrybacks of tax matters to previous taxable years applicable to all years not closed under the IRS rules. As a result of this effort, PNMR received net refunds from the IRS of $6.5 million. Of the refunds, $2.1 million was recorded as a reduction of the net interest receivable and $5.1 million was recorded as interest income, which was partially offset by $0.7 million of interest expense. In addition, PNMR incurred $0.9 million in professional fees related to the analysis. Of the net pre-tax impacts aggregating $3.5 million, $2.6 million is reflected in the PNM segment, $0.3 million in the TNMP segment, and $0.6 million in the Corporate and Other segment.
Estimated interest income related to refunds the Company expects to receive is included in Other Incomeincome and estimated interest expense and penalties related to potential cash settlements are included in interest expenseInterest Charges in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings (Loss).Earnings. Interest income (expense) related to income taxes iswas as follows:
 PNMR PNM TNMP
 (In thousands)
2015$
 $
 $
2014$146
 $148
 $(2)
2013$242
 $251
 $(2)
 PNMR PNM TNMP
 (In thousands)
2017$
 $
 $
2016$4,398
 $3,625
 $345
2015$
 $
 $
Accumulated
There was no accumulated accrued interest receivable (payable)or payable related to income taxes is as follows:
 PNMR PNM TNMP
 (In thousands)
December 31, 2015:     
Accumulated accrued interest receivable$3,236
 $3,236
 $
Accumulated accrued interest payable$(1,120) $(24) $(120)
December 31, 2014:     
Accumulated accrued interest receivable$3,569
 $3,569
 $
Accumulated accrued interest payable$(1,120) $(24) $(120)
of December 31, 2017 and 2016.

The Company files a federal consolidated and several consolidated and separate state income tax returns. The tax years prior to 20122013 are closed to examination by either federal or state taxing authorities other than Arizona. The tax years prior to 20092012 are closed to examination by Arizona taxing authorities. Other tax years are open to examination by federal and state taxing authorities. At December 31, 20152017, the Company has $427.4410.4 million of federal net operating loss carryforwards that expire

B-B - 69

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

beginning in 2030 and $77.471.8 million of federal tax credit carryforwards that expire beginning in 2023. State net operating losses expire beginning in 20162017 and vary from federal due to differences between state and federal tax law.

In 2013, New Mexico House Bill 641 reduced the New Mexico corporate income tax rate from 7.6% to 5.9%. The rate reduction is being phased-in from 2014 to 2018. In accordance with GAAP, PNMR and PNM adjusted accumulated deferred income taxes to reflect the tax rate at which the balances are expected to reverse during the period that includes the date of enactment, which was in the year ended December 31, 2013. At that time, the portion of the adjustment related to PNM’s regulated activities was recorded as a reduction in deferred tax liabilities which was offset byand an increase in a regulatory liability, based on the assumption that PNM will be required to return the benefit to customers over time. PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case (Note 17) reflects that assumption. In addition, the portion of the adjustment that iswas not related to PNM’s regulated activities was recorded in PNMR’s Corporate and Other segment as a reduction in deferred tax assets and an increase in income tax expense. Changes in the estimated timing of reversals of deferred tax assets and liabilities will resultresulted in refinements of the impacts of this change in tax rates being recorded periodically until 2018, when the rate reduction iswas fully phased-in. Adjustments to deferred income taxes recorded as increases (decreases) in the regulatory liability and income tax expense are as follows:

PNMR PNM TNMPPNMR PNM TNMP
(In thousands)(In thousands)
December 31, 2017:     
Regulatory liability$(10,109) $(10,109) $
Income tax expense$(1,259) $(1,179) $
December 31, 2016:     
Regulatory liability$(7,132) $(7,132) $
Income tax expense$712
 $804
 $
December 31, 2015:          
Regulatory liability$(1,903) $(1,903) $
$(1,903) $(1,903) $
Income tax expense$(674) $(470) $
$(674) $(470) $
December 31, 2014:     
Regulatory liability$(5,106) $(5,106) $
Income tax expense$(71) $(312) $
December 31, 2013:     
Regulatory liability$23,896
 $23,896
 $
Income tax expense$1,233
 $
 $

In 2008, fifty percent bonus tax depreciation was enacted as a temporary two-year stimulus measure as part of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. Bonus tax depreciation in various forms has beenwas continuously extended since that time, most recentlyincluding by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015. The 2015 act extendsextended and phases-outphased-out bonus tax depreciation through 2019. As discussed above the Tax Act eliminated bonus depreciation for utilities effective September 28, 2017. As a result of the net operating loss carryforwards for income tax purposes created by bonus depreciation and reduced future income taxes payable resulting from New Mexico House Bill 641, certain tax carryforwards are not expected to be utilized before their expiration. In accordance with GAAP, PNMR and PNM have impaired the tax carryforwards which were not expected to be utilized prior to their expiration. The impairments, net of federal tax benefit, for 20132015 through 20152017 are as follows:
PNMR PNM TNMPPNMR PNM TNMP
(In thousands)(In thousands)
December 31, 2017:     
State tax credit carryforwards$
 $
 $
State net operating loss carryforwards$819
 $627
 $
Charitable contribution carryforwards$909
 $
 $
December 31, 2016:     
State tax credit carryforwards$
 $
 $
State net operating loss carryforwards$(311) $(213) $
Charitable contribution carryforwards$
 $
 $
December 31, 2015:          
State tax credit carryforwards$3,092
 $
 $
$3,092
 $
 $
State net operating loss carryforwards$5,278
 $3,619
 $
$5,278
 $3,619
 $
Charitable contribution carryforwards$2,042
 $
 $
$2,042
 $
 $
December 31, 2014:     
State tax credit carryforwards$894
 $
 $
State net operating loss carryforwards$3,129
 $2,145
 $
December 31, 2013:     
State tax credit carryforwards$3,880
 $
 $


B - 70

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

The impairments of unexpired state tax credits, state net operating loss, and charitable contribution carryforwards are reflected as a valuation allowance against deferred tax assets. The reserve balances, after reflecting expiration of carryforwards under applicable tax laws, at December 31, 20152017 and 20142016 are as follows:

B- 70

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013


PNMR PNM TNMPPNMR PNM TNMP
(In thousands)(In thousands)
December 31, 2015:     
December 31, 2017:     
State tax credit carryforwards$6,378
 $
 $
$2,487
 $
 $
State net operating loss carryforwards$361
 $248
 $
$1,131
 $839
 $
Charitable contribution carryforwards$659
 $
 $
$952
 $
 $
December 31, 2014:     
December 31, 2016:     
State tax credit carryforwards$5,492
 $
 $
$3,986
 $
 $
State net operating loss carryforwards$3,129
 $2,145
 $
$361
 $248
 $
Charitable contribution carryforwards$659
 $
 $

PNMR adoptedThe NMPRC’s order in the safe harbor methodNM 2015 Rate Case (Note 17) approved PNM’s request to record a regulatory asset, which net of accounting for repairs costs on electric generation property under IRS Revenue Procedure 2013-24 on itsfederal income taxes, amounted to $2.1 million, to recover a 2014 corporate income tax return. PNMR had previously adopted similar safe harbor accounting methods for repair costs on electric transmission and distribution property. Additionally, on its 2014 tax return PNMR adopted certain accounting methods required by the IRS tangible property regulations issued in September 2013. The effectsimpairment of these changes were immaterial, given PNMR’sPNM’s New Mexico net operating loss carryforward position.

In May 2013, PNMR received a refundresulting from an extension of federal income taxes paid in prior years, which primarily was due to bonus tax depreciation and changes in the Company’s method of accounting for repairs expense for income tax purposes.provision for fifty percent bonus depreciation. The total refund was $96.2 million of which $77.4 million was attributable to PNM.

In 2014, the Company settled the IRS examination of income tax years 2003 and 2005regulatory asset is being recovered through 2008. As a result of the settlement, the Company received net federal tax refunds of $2.0 million. The IRS examination resulted in the settlement of certain issues for which the Company had previously reflected liabilities related to uncertain tax positions.rates over two years. The settlement of the IRS examination, includingNM 2016 Rate Case (Note 17) included $3.3 million, net of federal tax, resulting from impairment of a 2015 New Mexico net operating loss as an addition to the uncertain tax position matters, resultedremaining unamortized balance of the regulatory asset from the NM 2015 Rate Case. The total balance will be recovered over three years beginning in PNMR recording an income tax benefit2018. These impacts, net of $0.2 million on a consolidated basisamortization, are reflected in the year ended December 31, 2014. PNM recorded an income tax expense on the Consolidated Statement of $1.1 million, TNMP reflected no impact, and an income tax benefit of $1.3 million was recorded in PNMR’s Corporate and Other segment.Earnings.

On November 20, 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-17, Income Taxes (Topic 740) - Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes, which eliminated the requirement to classify deferred tax assets and liabilities as non-current or current. Under ASU 2015-17, all deferred taxes are treated as non-current. As of December 31, 2015, the Company adopted ASU 2015-17 and elected to apply it retrospectively for all periods presented because it simplifies reporting and makes all presented periods comparable. As a result, amounts previously reported as the current portion of accumulated deferred income taxes in Current Assets on the December 31, 2014 Consolidated Balance Sheets were reclassified to reduce accumulated deferred income taxes in Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities. The amounts reclassified were $26.4 million for PNMR, $12.4 million for PNM, and $6.4 million for TNMP.

B- 71

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

(12)Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits
PNMR and its subsidiaries maintain qualified defined benefit pension plans, postretirement benefit plans providing medical and dental benefits, and executive retirement programs (collectively, the “PNM Plans” and “TNMP Plans”). PNMR maintains the legal obligation for the benefits owed to participants under these plans. The periodic costs or income of the PNM Plans and TNMP Plans are included in regulated rates to the extent attributable to regulated operations. PNM receivesand TNMP receive a regulated return on the amount it hasamounts funded for its pension planand OPEB plans in excess of the periodic cost or income to the extent included in retail rates.rates (a “prepaid pension asset”).
Participants in the PNM Plans include eligible employees and retirees of PNMR and other subsidiaries of PNMR.PNM. Participants in the TNMP Plans include eligible employees and retirees of TNMP. The PNM pension plan was frozen at the end of 1997 with regard to new participants, salary levels, and benefits. Through December 31, 2007, additional credited service could be accrued under the PNM pension plan up to a limit determined by age and service. The TNMP pension plan was frozen at December 31, 2005 with regard to new participants, salary levels, and benefits.
GAAP requires a plan sponsor to (a) recognize in its statement of financial position an asset for a plan’s overfunded status or a liability for a plan’s underfunded status; (b) measure a plan’s assets and its obligations that determine its funded status as of the end of the employer’s fiscal year; and (c) recognize changes in the funded status of a defined benefit postretirement plan in the year in which the changes occur.
GAAP requires unrecognized prior service costs and unrecognized gains or losses to be recorded in AOCI and subsequently amortized. The amortization of these incurred costs is included as pension and postretirement benefit periodic cost or income in subsequent years. To the extent the amortization of these items will ultimately be recovered or returned through future rates, PNM and TNMP record the costs as a regulatory asset or regulatory liability.
ForThe Company maintains trust funds for the PNM Planspension and TNMP Plans,OPEB plans from which benefits are paid to eligible employees and retirees. The Company’s funding policy is to make contributions to the trusts, as determined by an independent actuary, that comply with minimum guidelines of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code. Information concerning the investments is contained in Note 8. The Company has in place a policy that defines the investment objectives, establisheses

B - 71

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

tablishes performance goals of asset managers, and provides procedures for the manner in which investments are to be reviewed. The plans implement investment strategies to achieve the following objectives:
��
Maximize the return on assets,Implement investment strategies commensurate with the risk that the Corporate Investment Committee deems appropriate to meet the obligations of the pension plans and OPEB plans, minimize the volatility of expense, and account for contingencies
Transition asset mix over timethe long-term to a higher proportion of high quality fixed income investments as the plans’ funded statuses improve

Management is responsible for the determination of the asset target mix and the expected rate of return. The target asset allocations are determined based on consultations with external investment advisors. The expected long-term rate of return on pension and postretirement plan assets is calculated on the market-related value of assets. GAAP requires that actual gains and losses on pension and postretirementOPEB plan assets be recognized in the market-related value of assets equally over a period of not more than five years, which reduces year-to-year volatility. For the PNM Plans and TNMP Plans, the market-related value of assets is equal to the prior year’s market relatedmarket-related value of assets adjusted for contributions, benefit payments and investment gains and losses that are within a corridor of plus or minus 4.0% around the expected return on market value. Gains and losses that are outside the corridor are amortized over five years.


B- 72

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

Pension Plans
For defined benefit pension plans, including the executive retirement plans, the PBO represents the actuarial present value of all benefits attributed by the pension benefit formula to employee service rendered prior to that date using assumptions regarding future compensation levels. The ABO represents the PBO without considering future compensation levels. Since the pension plans are frozen, the PBO and ABO are equal. The following table presents information about the PBO, fair value of plan assets, and funded status of the plans:
PNM Plan TNMP PlanPNM Plan TNMP Plan
Year Ended December 31, Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31, Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 2015 20142017 2016 2017 2016
(In thousands)(In thousands)
PBO at beginning of year$657,557
 $599,537
 $72,305
 $66,159
$621,751
 $597,900
 $67,061
 $64,198
Service cost
 
 
 

 
 
 
Interest cost28,255
 30,163
 3,043
 3,193
26,908
 30,307
 2,887
 3,304
Actuarial (gain) loss(38,151) 72,524
 (5,157) 8,466
26,298
 39,463
 3,050
 4,318
Benefits paid(49,761) (44,667) (5,993) (5,513)(50,974) (45,919) (4,575) (4,759)
PBO at end of year597,900
 657,557
 64,198
 72,305
623,983
 621,751
 68,423
 67,061
Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year587,909
 556,353
 69,177
 66,118
543,601
 557,923
 60,624
 62,082
Actual return on plan assets(10,225) 76,223
 (1,102) 8,572
69,389
 31,597
 7,450
 3,301
Employer contributions30,000
 
 
 

 
 
 
Benefits paid(49,761) (44,667) (5,993) (5,513)(50,974) (45,919) (4,575) (4,759)
Fair value of plan assets at end of year557,923
 587,909
 62,082
 69,177
562,016
 543,601
 63,499
 60,624
Funded status – asset (liability) for pension benefits$(39,977) $(69,648) $(2,116) $(3,128)$(61,967) $(78,150) $(4,924) $(6,437)

The following table presents pre-tax information about prior service cost and net actuarial (gain) loss in AOCI as of December 31, 2015.
 PNM Plan TNMP Plan
 December 31, 2015 December 31, 2015
 
Prior service
cost
 
Net actuarial
(gain) loss
 
Net actuarial
(gain) loss
 (In thousands)
Amounts in AOCI not yet recognized in net periodic benefit cost (income) at beginning of year$(2,260) $148,212
 $
Experience loss (gain)
 11,397
 365
Regulatory asset (liability) adjustment
 (6,610) (365)
Amortization recognized in net periodic benefit cost (income)405
 (6,224) 
Amounts in AOCI not yet recognized in net periodic benefit cost (income) at end of year$(1,855) $146,775
 $
Amortization expected to be recognized in 2016$(405) $5,399
 $

B- 73B - 72

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

Actuarial (gain) loss results from changes in:
 PNM Plan TNMP Plan
 Year Ended December 31, Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2017 2016
 (in thousands)
Discount rates$27,547
 $41,849
 $3,528
 $5,055
Demographic experience(1,249) (334) (517) (556)
Other assumption and experience
 (2,052) 39
 (181)
 $26,298
 $39,463
 $3,050
 $4,318

The following table presents pre-tax information about prior service cost and net actuarial (gain) loss in AOCI as of December 31, 2017.
 PNM Plan TNMP Plan
 December 31, 2017 December 31, 2017
 
Prior service
cost
 
Net actuarial
(gain) loss
 
Net actuarial
(gain) loss
 (In thousands)
Amounts in AOCI not yet recognized in net periodic benefit cost (income) at beginning of year$(1,450) $159,149
 $
Experience (gain) loss
 (9,288) (621)
Regulatory asset (liability) adjustment
 5,387
 621
Amortization recognized in net periodic benefit cost (income)405
 (6,722) 
Amounts in AOCI not yet recognized in net periodic benefit cost (income) at end of year$(1,045) $148,526
 $
Amortization expected to be recognized in 2018$(405) $6,653
 $
The following table presents the components of net periodic benefit cost (income):
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
PNM Plan          
Service cost$
 $
 $
$
 $
 $
Interest cost28,255
 30,163
 28,142
26,908
 30,307
 28,255
Expected return on plan assets(39,323) (38,044) (41,930)(33,803) (35,416) (39,323)
Amortization of net (gain) loss14,820
 13,020
 14,840
16,006
 13,820
 14,820
Amortization of prior service cost(965) (965) 76
(965) (965) (965)
Net periodic benefit cost$2,787
 $4,174
 $1,128
$8,146
 $7,746
 $2,787
TNMP Plan          
Service cost$
 $
 $
$
 $
 $
Interest cost3,043
 3,193
 3,087
2,887
 3,304
 3,043
Expected return on plan assets(4,420) (4,526) (4,849)(3,779) (3,943) (4,420)
Amortization of net (gain) loss782
 665
 1,049
923
 700
 782
Amortization of prior service cost
 
 

 
 
Net periodic benefit cost (income)$(595) $(668) $(713)$31
 $61
 $(595)


B - 73

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

The following significant weighted-average assumptions were used to determine the PBO and net periodic benefit cost (income). Should actual experience differ from actuarial assumptions, the PBO and net periodic benefit cost (income) would be affected.
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
PNM Plan2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
Discount rate for determining December 31 PBO5.29% 4.48% 5.27%4.05% 4.51% 5.29%
Discount rate for determining net periodic benefit cost (income)4.48% 5.27% 4.30%4.51% 5.29% 4.48%
Expected return on plan assets6.80% 7.20% 7.65%6.40% 6.50% 6.80%
Rate of compensation increaseN/A
 N/A
 N/A
N/A
 N/A
 N/A
TNMP Plan    
    
Discount rate for determining December 31 PBO5.39% 4.39% 5.06%4.01% 4.49% 5.39%
Discount rate for determining net periodic benefit cost (income)4.39% 5.06% 4.19%4.49% 5.39% 4.39%
Expected return on plan assets6.80% 7.20% 7.65%6.40% 6.50% 6.80%
Rate of compensation increaseN/A
 N/A
 N/A
N/A
 N/A
 N/A
The assumed discount rate for determining the PBO was determined based on a review of long-term high-grade bonds and management’s expectations. Changes in discount rates resulted in a decrease in the PNM PBO of $45.9 million at December 31, 2015 and an increase of $50.6 million at December 31, 2014. Changes in discount rates resulted in a decrease in the TNMP PBO of $6.1 million at December 31, 2015 and an increase of $5.1 million at December 31, 2014. Changes in demographic experience resulted in actuarial losses in the PNM PBO of $2.8 million and $0.2 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014. Changes in demographic experience resulted in actuarial losses in the TNMP PBO of $0.9 million at December 31, 2015 and actuarial gains of $0.4 million at December 31, 2014. Changes in other assumptions and experience resulted in actuarial losses in the PNM PBO of $4.9 million at December 31, 2015 and actuarial gains of less than $0.2 million at December 31, 2014. Changes in other assumptions and experience resulted in actuarial losses in the TNMP PBO of less than $0.1 million and $1.3 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014. These changes are reflected as actuarial (gain) loss above.


B- 74

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

In late 2014, the Society of Actuaries issued revised mortality tables that include changes in assumptions to reflect increased life expectancy and the corresponding decrease in mortality rates.  This change impacts the Company’s pension plans, as the mortality assumptions are used as the basis for stating the pension obligation in financial statements, determining funding requirements, and making minimum lump-sum calculations.  The actuarial valuation performed as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 incorporated the impacts of the revised mortality tables.  Utilizing the revised mortality tables increased the PNM PBO by $21.9 million and the TNMP PBO by $2.5 million in 2014, which are reflected as the actuarial losses above.
The expected long-term rate of return on plan assets reflects the average rate of earnings expected on the funds invested, or to be invested, to provide for the benefits included in the PBO. Factors that are considered include, but are not limited to, historic returns on plan assets, current market information on long-term returns (e.g., long-term bond rates) and current and target asset allocations between asset categories. If all other factors were to remain unchanged, a 1% decrease in the expected long-term rate of return would cause PNM’s and TNMP’s 20162018 net periodic cost to increase $5.45.3 million and $0.6 million (analogous changes would result from a 1% increase). The actual rate of return for the PNM and TNMP pension plans was (1.7)%13.4% and (1.7)%12.8% for the year ended December 31, 20152017.

The Company’s long-term pension investment strategy is to invest in assets whose interest rate sensitivity is correlated with the pension liability. The Company has chosen to implement this strategy known as Liability Driven Investing (“LDI”) by increasing the liability matching investments as the funded status of the pension plans improves. These liability matching investments are currently fixed income securities. ThePrior to 2018, the pension plans current targeted asset allocation iswas 21% equities, 65% fixed income, and 14% alternative investments. The Company is contemplating modifying the LDI strategy by decreasing the liability matching fixed income investments portfolio from 65% to 50% beginning in 2018. The new asset allocation will be implemented in 2018. Equity investments are primarily in domestic securities that include large, mid, and small capitalization companies. The pension plans have a 6% targeted allocation to equities of companies domiciled primarily in developed countries outside of the United States. This category includes actively managed international and domestic equity securities that are benchmarked against a variety of style indices. Fixed income investments are primarily corporate bonds of companies from diversified industries and government securities. Alternative investments include investments in hedge funds, real estate funds, and private equity funds. The hedge funds and private equity funds are structured as multi-manager multi-strategy fund of funds to achieve a diversified position in these asset classes. The hedge funds pursue various absolute return strategies such as relative value, long-short equity, and event driven. Private equity fund strategies include mezzanine financing, buy-outs, and venture capital. The real estate investment is structured as an open-ended, commingled private real estate portfolio that invests in a diversified portfolio of assets including commercial property and multi-family housing. See Note 8 for fair value information concerning assets held by the pension plans.

The following pension benefit payments are expected to be paid:
PNM
Plan
 
TNMP
Plan
PNM Plan TNMP Plan
(In thousands)(In thousands)
2016$49,963
 $5,800
201749,681
 5,416
201848,209
 5,697
$49,221
 $5,929
201947,476
 5,218
48,639
 5,215
202046,474
 4,955
47,069
 5,108
2021 – 2025213,810
 23,401
202145,246
 5,373
202244,232
 4,856
2023 - 2027201,389
 22,085

B - 74

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

The Company does not expect to make any cash contributions to the pension plans in 2016-2020,2018-2021, but expects to contribute $5.1 million and zero to the PNM and TNMP pension plans in 2022, based on current law, including recent amendments to funding requirements, and estimates of portfolio performance. These anticipations were developed using current funding assumptions with discount rates of 4.8%4.0% to 5.7%5.1%. Actual amounts to be funded in the future will be dependent on the actuarial assumptions at that time, including the appropriate discount rate. PNM and TNMP may make additional contributions at their discretion.

B- 75

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

Other Postretirement Benefit Plans
For postretirement benefit plans, the APBO is the actuarial present value of all future benefits attributed under the terms of the postretirement benefit plan to employee service rendered to date.
The following table presents information about the APBO, the fair value of plan assets, and the funded status of the plans:
PNM Plan TNMP PlanPNM Plan TNMP Plan
Year Ended December 31, Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31, Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 2015 20142017 2016 2017 2016
(In thousands)(In thousands)
APBO at beginning of year$95,175
 $92,165
 $14,070
 $12,266
$94,269
 $84,674
 $12,830
 $13,106
Service cost204
 181
 247
 237
96
 140
 143
 186
Interest cost4,089
 4,630
 608
 619
4,025
 4,346
 556
 677
Participant contributions2,439
 2,582
 320
 366
3,069
 2,690
 379
 520
Actuarial (gain) loss(6,565) 4,455
 (575) 1,639
(1,601) 17,877
 (381) (96)
Benefits paid(10,668) (8,838) (1,564) (1,057)(9,961) (11,734) (1,248) (1,563)
Plan design changes
 (3,724) 
 
APBO at end of year84,674
 95,175
 13,106
 14,070
89,897
 94,269
 12,279
 12,830
Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year78,175
 73,565
 10,094
 9,601
72,694
 72,952
 8,544
 9,111
Actual return on plan assets(617) 7,334
 (82) 841
14,222
 5,923
 1,642
 476
Employer contributions3,623
 3,532
 343
 343
332
 2,863
 685
 
Participant contributions2,439
 2,582
 320
 366
3,069
 2,690
 379
 520
Benefits paid(10,668) (8,838) (1,564) (1,057)(9,961) (11,734) (1,248) (1,563)
Fair value of plan assets at end of year72,952
 78,175
 9,111
 10,094
80,356
 72,694
 10,002
 8,544
Funded status – asset (liability)$(11,722) $(17,000) $(3,995) $(3,976)$(9,541) $(21,575) $(2,277) $(4,286)
 
Actuarial (gain) loss results from changes in:
 PNM Plan TNMP Plan
 Year Ended December 31, Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2017 2016
 (in thousands)
Discount rates$3,536
 $6,569
 $613
 $1,112
Claims, contributions, and demographic experience(5,845) 19,562
 (994) (102)
Assumed participation rate
 (6,335) 
 (1,013)
Mortality rate
 (691) 
 (93)
Medical benefits1,425
 (1,228) 
 
Dental trend assumption(717) 
 
 
 $(1,601) $17,877
 $(381) $(96)

In the yearsyear ended December 31, 2015,2017, actuarial gains of $0.3$10.6 million were recorded as adjustments to regulatory assets for the PNM Plan. For the TNMP Plan, actuarial lossesgains of less than $0.1$1.6 million were recorded as adjustments to regulatory liabilities.
The following table presents the components of net periodic benefit cost:
 Year Ended December 31,
 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands)
PNM Plan     
Service cost$204
 $181
 $260
Interest cost4,089
 4,630
 4,113
Expected return on plan assets(5,610) (5,638) (5,043)
Amortization of net (gain) loss1,966
 2,225
 4,242
Amortization of prior service credit(642) (1,343) (1,343)
Net periodic benefit cost$7
 $55
 $2,229
TNMP Plan     
Service cost$247
 $237
 $299
Interest cost608
 619
 566
Expected return on plan assets(520) (534) (503)
Amortization of net (gain) loss
 (122) 
Amortization of prior service cost
 32
 57
Net periodic benefit cost$335
 $232
 $419

B- 76B - 75

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

The following table presents the components of net periodic benefit cost:
 Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In thousands)
PNM Plan     
Service cost$96
 $140
 $204
Interest cost4,025
 4,346
 4,089
Expected return on plan assets(5,230) (5,483) (5,610)
Amortization of net (gain) loss3,682
 1,145
 1,966
Amortization of prior service credit(1,663) (30) (642)
Net periodic benefit cost$910
 $118
 $7
TNMP Plan     
Service cost$143
 $186
 $247
Interest cost556
 677
 608
Expected return on plan assets(456) (490) (520)
Amortization of net (gain) loss(79) (40) 
Amortization of prior service cost
 
 
Net periodic benefit cost$164
 $333
 $335

The following significant weighted-average assumptions were used to determine the APBO and net periodic benefit cost. Should actual experience differ from actuarial assumptions, the APBO and net periodic benefit cost would be affected.
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
PNM Plan2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
Discount rate for determining December 31 APBO5.34% 4.45% 5.21%4.00% 4.47% 5.34%
Discount rate for determining net periodic benefit cost4.45% 5.21% 4.26%4.47% 5.34% 4.45%
Expected return on plan assets7.70% 8.50% 8.50%7.50% 7.70% 7.70%
Rate of compensation increaseN/A
 N/A
 N/A
N/A
 N/A
 N/A
TNMP Plan          
Discount rate for determining December 31 APBO5.34% 4.45% 5.21%4.00% 4.47% 5.34%
Discount rate for determining net periodic benefit cost4.45% 5.21% 4.26%4.47% 5.34% 4.45%
Expected return on plan assets5.70% 6.50% 6.50%5.40% 5.70% 5.70%
Rate of compensation increaseN/A
 N/A
 N/A
N/A
 N/A
 N/A
The assumed discount rate for determining the APBO was determined based on a review of long-term high-grade bonds and management’s expectations. Changes in the discount rates resulted in a decrease in the PNM APBO of $7.3 million at December 31, 2015 and an increase of $6.7 million at December 31, 2014. Changes in discount rates resulted in a decrease in the TNMP APBO of $1.3 million at December 31, 2015 and an increase of $1.1 million at December 31, 2014. Changes in claims, contributions, medical trends, and demographic experience resulted in an actuarial loss in the PNM plan of $0.7 million at December 31, 2015 and an actuarial gain of $5.4 million at December 31, 2014. Changes in claims, contributions, and demographic experience resulted in an actuarial losses of $0.7 million change in the TNMP plan at December 31, 2015 and less than $0.1 million at December 31, 2014. These changes are reflected as actuarial (gain) loss above.
The actuarial valuations performed as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 incorporated the impacts of the revised mortality tables discussed above.  Utilizing the revised mortality tables increased the PNM APBO by $3.2 million and the TNMP APBO by $0.5 million in 2014, which are reflected as actuarial losses above.
The expected long-term rate of return on plan assets reflects the average rate of earnings expected on the funds invested, or to be invested, to provide for the benefits included in the APBO. Factors that are considered include, but are not limited to, historic returns on plan assets, current market information on long-term returns (e.g., long-term bond rates), and current and target asset allocations between asset categories. If all other factors were to remain unchanged, a 1% decrease in the expected long-term rate of return would cause PNM’s and TNMP’s 20162018 postretirement benefit cost to increase $0.7 million and $0.1 million (analogous changes would result from a 1% increase). The actual rate of return for the PNM and TNMP postretirement benefit plans was (0.8)%20.5% and (0.5)%19.4% for the year ended December 31, 20152017.
The following table shows the assumed health care cost trend rates for the PNM postretirement benefit plan:
 PNM Plan
 December 31,
 2015 2014
Health care cost trend rate assumed for next year7.0% 7.0%
Rate to which the cost trend rate is assumed to decline (the ultimate trend rate)5.0% 5.0%
Year that the rate reaches the ultimate trend rate2024
 2023

B- 77B - 76

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

The following table shows the assumed health care cost trend rates for the PNM postretirement benefit plan:
 PNM Plan
 December 31,
 2017 2016
Health care cost trend rate assumed for next year6.5% 6.8%
Rate to which the cost trend rate is assumed to decline (the ultimate trend rate)5.0% 5.0%
Year that the rate reaches the ultimate trend rate2024
 2024
The following table shows the impact of a one-percentage-point change in assumed health care cost trend rates:
PNM PlanPNM Plan
1-Percentage-
Point  Increase
 
1-Percentage-
Point  Decrease
1-Percentage-
Point  Increase
 
1-Percentage-
Point  Decrease
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Effect on total of service and interest cost$273
 $(235)$72
 $(111)
Effect on APBO$4,370
 $(3,840)$1,452
 $(2,235)
TNMP’s exposure to cost increases in the postretirement benefitOPEB plan is minimized by a provision that limits TNMP’s share of costs under the plan. Costs of the plan in excess of the limit are wholly borne by the participants. TNMP reached the cost limit at the end of 2001. As a result, a one-percentage-point change in assumed health care cost trend rates would have no effect on either the net periodic expense or the year-end APBO.
The Company’s other postretirement benefitOPEB plans invest in a portfolio that is diversified by asset class and style strategies. The other postretirement benefitOPEB plans generally use the same pension fixed income and equity investment managers and utilize the same overall investment strategy as described above for the pension plans, except there is no allocation to alternative investments. The other postretirement benefit plans have a target asset allocation of 70% equities and 30% fixed income. See Note 8 for fair value information concerning assets held by the other postretirement benefit plans.
The following other postretirement benefit payments, which reflect expected future service and are net of participant contributions, are expected to be paid:
PNM Plan TNMP PlanPNM Plan TNMP Plan
(In thousands)(In thousands)
2016$6,568
 $838
20176,667
 858
20186,815
 880
$7,829
 $708
20196,830
 903
7,730
 725
20206,875
 927
7,605
 748
2021 - 202533,268
 4,939
20217,442
 774
20227,132
 795
2023 - 202731,250
 4,126
PNM expects to make no contributions to the PNM postretirement benefitOPEB plan totaling $3.5 million in 2016 and $14.0 million for 2017-2020.2018-2022. TNMP expects to make contributions to the TNMP postretirement benefit planOPEB totaling $0.3 million in 20162018 and $1.4 million for 2017-2020.2019-2022.

B - 77

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

Executive Retirement Programs
For the executive retirement programs, the following table presents information about the PBO and funded status of the plans:

B-
 PNM Plan TNMP Plan
 Year Ended
December 31,
 Year Ended
December 31,
 2017 2016 2017 2016
 (In thousands)
PBO at beginning of year$16,212
 $16,105
 $787
 $794
Service cost
 
 
 
Interest cost697
 812
 33
 40
Actuarial (gain) loss674
 768
 44
 47
Benefits paid(1,466) (1,473) (93) (94)
PBO at end of year – funded status16,117
 16,212
 771
 787
Less current liability1,501
 1,510
 93
 93
Non-current liability$14,616
 $14,702
 $678
 $694
The following table presents pre-tax information about net actuarial loss in AOCI as of December 31, 2017.
 December 31, 2017
 PNM Plan TNMP Plan
 (In thousands)
Amount in AOCI not yet recognized in net periodic benefit cost at beginning of year$2,299
 $
Experience (gain) loss674
 44
Regulatory asset (liability) adjustment(391) (44)
Amortization recognized in net periodic benefit cost (income)(132) 
Amount in AOCI not yet recognized in net periodic benefit cost at end of year$2,450
 $
Amortization expected to be recognized in 2018$151
 $
The following table presents the components of net periodic benefit cost:
 Year Ended December 31,
 2017 2016 2015
 (In thousands)
PNM Plan     
Service cost$
 $
 $
Interest cost697
 812
 760
Amortization of net (gain) loss313
 256
 325
Amortization of prior service cost
 
 
Net periodic benefit cost$1,010
 $1,068
 $1,085
TNMP Plan     
Service cost$
 $
 $
Interest cost33
 40
 36
Amortization of net (gain) loss9
 2
 5
Amortization of prior service cost
 
 
Net periodic benefit cost$42
 $42
 $41

B - 78

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 2013

2015
 PNM Plan TNMP Plan
 Year Ended
December 31,
 Year Ended
December 31,
 2015 2014 2015 2014
 (In thousands)
PBO at beginning of year$17,730
 $16,363
 $878
 $823
Service cost
 
 
 
Interest cost760
 822
 36
 39
Actuarial (gain) loss(908) 2,040
 (26) 110
Benefits paid(1,477) (1,495) (94) (94)
PBO at end of year – funded status16,105
 17,730
 794
 878
Less current liability1,519
 1,528
 93
 94
Non-current liability$14,586
 $16,202
 $701
 $784
The following table presents pre-tax information about net actuarial loss in AOCI as of December 31, 2015.
 December 31, 2015
 PNM Plan TNMP Plan
 (In thousands)
Amount in AOCI not yet recognized in net periodic benefit cost at beginning of year$2,602
 $
Experience loss (gain)(908) 26
Regulatory asset (liability) adjustment526
 (26)
Amortization recognized in net periodic benefit cost (income)(136) 
Amount in AOCI not yet recognized in net periodic benefit cost at end of year$2,084
 $
Amortization expected to be recognized in 2016$108
 $
The following table presents the components of net periodic benefit:
 Year Ended December 31,
 2015 2014 2013
 (In thousands)
PNM Plan     
Service cost$
 $
 $
Interest cost760
 822
 720
Amortization of net (gain) loss325
 210
 232
Amortization of prior service cost
 
 
Net periodic benefit cost$1,085
 $1,032
 $952
TNMP Plan     
Service cost$
 $
 $
Interest cost36
 39
 36
Amortization of net (gain) loss5
 
 
Amortization of prior service cost
 
 
Net periodic benefit cost$41
 $39
 $36

The following significant weighted-average assumptions were used to determine the PBO and net periodic benefit cost. Should actual experience differ from actuarial assumptions, the PBO and net periodic benefit cost would be affected.

B- 79

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
PNM Plan2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
Discount rate for determining December 31 PBO5.29% 4.48% 5.27%4.05% 4.51% 5.29%
Discount rate for determining net periodic benefit cost4.48% 5.27% 4.30%4.51% 5.29% 4.48%
Long-term rate of return on plan assetsN/A
 N/A
 N/A
N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Rate of compensation increaseN/A
 N/A
 N/A
N/A
 N/A
 N/A
TNMP Plan          
Discount rate for determining December 31 PBO5.39% 4.39% 5.06%4.01% 4.49% 5.39%
Discount rate for determining net periodic benefit cost4.39% 5.06% 4.19%4.49% 5.39% 4.39%
Long-term rate of return on plan assetsN/A
 N/A
 N/A
N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Rate of compensation increaseN/A
 N/A
 N/A
N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 
The assumed discount rate for determining the PBO was determined based on a review of long-term high-grade bonds and management’s expectations. The impacts of changes in assumptions or experience were not significant.
The following executive retirement plan payments, which reflect expected future service, are expected:
PNM
Plan
 
TNMP
Plan
PNM Plan TNMP Plan
(In thousands)(In thousands)
2016$1,517
 $93
20171,499
 92
20181,477
 90
$1,501
 $93
20191,453
 88
1,473
 91
20201,426
 85
1,441
 89
2021 – 20256,587
 371
20211,405
 85
20221,363
 81
2023 - 20276,014
 324
Other Retirement Plans
PNMR sponsors a 401(k) defined contribution plan for eligible employees, including those of its subsidiaries. PNMR’s contributions to the 401(k) plan consist of a discretionary matching contribution equal to 75% of the first 6% of eligible compensation contributed by the employee on a before-tax basis. PNMR also makes a non-matching contribution ranging from 3% to 10% of eligible compensation based on the eligible employee’s age.
PNMR also provides executive deferred compensation benefits through an unfunded, non-qualified plan. The purpose of this plan is to permit certain key employees of PNMR who participate in the 401(k) defined contribution plan to defer compensation and receive credits without reference to the certain limitations on contributions. Eligible employees had been allowed to save on an after-tax basis. This plan has been amended and the after-tax provision was eliminated as of June 30, 2015.

B- 80B - 79

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

A summary of expenses for these other retirement plans is as follows:
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
PNMR          
401(k) plan$16,725
 $16,703
 $16,785
$16,452
 $17,762
 $16,725
Non-qualified plan$1,436
 $2,257
 $2,204
$3,702
 $2,017
 $1,436
PNM          
401(k) plan$12,679
 $12,745
 $12,952
$12,120
 $13,397
 $12,679
Non-qualified plan$1,090
 $1,722
 $1,691
$2,834
 $1,535
 $1,090
TNMP          
401(k) plan$4,046
 $3,958
 $3,953
$4,332
 $4,365
 $4,046
Non-qualified plan$346
 $535
 $513
$868
 $482
 $346
 
(13)Stock-Based Compensation
PNMR has various stock-based compensation programs, including stock options, restricted stock, and performance shares granted under the Performance Equity Plan (“PEP”). Although certain PNM and TNMP employees participate in the PNMR plans, PNM and TNMP do not have separate employee stock-based compensation plans. In 2011, the Company changed its approach to awarding stock-based compensation. As a result, no stock options have been granted since 2010 and awards of restricted stock have increased. Certain restricted stock awards are subject to achieving performance or market targets. Other awards of restricted stock are only subject to time vesting requirements.
 
Performance Equity Plan

The PEP provides for the granting of non-qualified stock options, restricted stock rights, performance shares, performance units, and stock appreciation rights to officers, key employees, and non-employee board members.members of the Board. Restricted stock under the PEP refers to awards of stock subject to vesting, performance, or market conditions rather than to shares with contractual post-vesting restrictions. Generally, the awards vest ratably over three years from the grant date of the award. However, awards with performance or market conditions vest upon satisfaction of those conditions. In addition, plan provisions provide that upon retirement, participants become 100% vested in certain stock awards. Beginning with 2017 awards, the vesting period for awards of restricted stock to non-employee members of the Board is one year. The total number of shares of PNMR common stock subject to all awards under the PEP, as approved by PNMR’s shareholders in May 2014, may not exceed 13.5 million shares, subject to adjustment and certain share counting rules set forth in the PEP. This current share pool is charged five shares for each share subject to restricted stock or other full value award. Re-pricing of stock options is prohibited unless specific shareholder approval is obtained.
Source of Shares
The source of shares for exercised stock options and vested restricted stock is shares acquired on the open market by an independent agent, rather than newly issued shares.
Accounting for Stock Awards
    
The stock-based compensation expense related to restricted stock awards without performance or market conditions is amortized to compensation expense over the requisite vesting period, which is generally three years. However, compensation expense for awards to participants that are retirement eligible on the grant date is recognized immediately at the grant date and is not amortized. Compensation expense for other such awards is amortized to compensation expense over the shorter of the requisite vesting period or the period until the participant becomes retirement eligible. Compensation expense for performance-based shares is recognized ratably over the performance period and is adjusted periodically to reflect the level of achievement expected to be attained. Compensation expense related to market-based shares is recognized ratably over the measurement period, regardless of the actual level of achievement, provided the employees meet their service requirements.
In June 2014,Total compensation expense for stock-based payment arrangements recognized by PNMR for the FASB issuedyears ended Accounting Standards Update 2014-12 December 31, 2017, Compensation –2016, and 2015 was $6.2 million, $5.6 million, and $4.9 million. Stock Compensation (Topic 718) Accounting for Share-Based Payments When the Termscompensation expense of an Award Provide That a Performance Target Could Be Achieved after$4.4 million, $4.2 million,

B- 81B - 80

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

the Requisite Service Period, which requires that a performance target that affects vesting and that could be achieved after the requisite service period be treated as a performance condition and should not be reflected in estimating the grant date fair value of the award. The FASB issued ASU 2012-12 to eliminate diversity in practice. The Company currently treats the performance targets covered by the standard as performance conditions, so this ASU had no impact on the Company.
Total compensation expense for stock-based payment arrangements recognized by PNMR for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014, and 2013 was $4.9 million, $5.9 million, and $5.3 million. Stock compensation expense of $3.6 million, $4.2 million, and $3.8 million was charged to PNM and $1.8 million, $1.3 million, $1.71.5 million, and $1.51.3 million was charged to TNMP. At December 31, 2015,2017, PNMR had unrecognized compensation expense related to stock awards of $5.7$3.8 million, which areis expected to be recognized over an average of 1.41.53 years.

PNMR receives a tax deduction for certain stock option exercises during the period the options are exercised, generally for the excess of the price at which the options are sold over the exercise prices of the options, and a tax deduction for the value of restricted stock at the vesting date.

The FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2016-09 Compensation –- Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting to simplify several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions and eliminate diversity in practice. PNMR’s historical accounting for stock compensation complies with ASU 2016-09, except for the treatment of the income tax consequences of awards and the presentation of reductions to taxes payable on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Prior to ASU 2016-09, benefits resulting from income tax deductions in excess of compensation cost recognized under GAAP for vested restricted stock and on exercised stock options (collectively, “excess tax benefits”) were recorded to equity provided the excess tax benefits reduced income taxes payable. Deficiencies resulting from tax deductions related to stock awards that were below recognized compensation cost upon vesting and on canceled stock options were recorded to equity. PNMR had not recorded excess tax benefits to equity since 2009 because it is in a net operating loss position for income tax purposes. ASU 2016-09 requires that all excess tax benefits and deficiencies be recorded to tax expense and classified as cash flows from operating activities. PNMR adopted ASU 2016-09 as of January 1, 2017 and recorded excess tax benefits of $2.3 million in the year ended December 31, 2017 of which $1.7 million was allocated to PNM and $0.6 million was allocated to TNMP. As required by ASU 2016-09, PNMR recorded the excess tax benefits that were not recognized in prior years, due to its net operating loss position, as a cumulative effect adjustment of $10.4 million on January 1, 2017, increasing retained earnings and decreasing accumulated deferred income taxes on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. When excess tax benefits are used to reduce income taxes payable, the benefit will be reflected in cash flows from operating activities.
The grant date fair value for restricted stock and stock awards with Company internal performance targets is determined based on the market price of PNMR common stock on the date of the agreements reduced by the present value of future dividends, which will not be received prior to vesting, applied to the total number of shares that are anticipated to vest, although the number of performance shares that ultimately vest cannot be determined until after the performance periods end. The grant date fair value of stock awards with market targets is determined using Monte Carlo simulation models, which provide grant date fair values that include an expectation of the number of shares to vest at the end of the measurement period.
The following table summarizes the weighted-average assumptions used to determine the awards grant date fair value:
 Year Ended December 31, Year Ended December 31,
Restricted Shares and Performance-Based Shares 2015 2014 2013  2017 2016 2015 
Expected quarterly dividends per share $0.200
 $0.185
 $0.165
  $0.2425
 $0.2200
 $0.2000
 
Risk-free interest rate 0.92% 0.62% 0.34%  1.50% 0.94% 0.92% 
              
Market-Based Shares              
Dividend yield 2.87% 2.82% 2.86%  2.67% 2.74% 2.87% 
Expected volatility 18.73% 25.11% 25.11%  20.80% 20.44% 18.73% 
Risk-free interest rate 1.00% 0.64% 0.36%  1.54% 0.97% 1.00% 
The following table summarizes activity in restricted stock awards, including performance-based and market-based shares, and stock options:
  Restricted StockStock Options
  Shares Weighted-Average Grant Date Fair ValueShares 
Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
Outstanding at December 31, 2014 258,770
 $22.31
920,505
 $20.39
Granted 340,020
 $20.34

 $
Exercised (349,635) $18.61
(280,612) $20.13
Forfeited (4,061) $24.81
(1,000) $30.50
Expired 
 
(69,551) $28.02
Outstanding at December 31, 2015 245,094
 $24.81
569,342
 $19.35
PNMR’s stock-based compensation program provides for performance and market targets through 2017. Included as restricted stock granted and exercised in the above table are 179,845 previously awarded shares that were earned for the 2012

B- 82B - 81

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

The following table summarizes activity in restricted stock awards, including performance-based and market-based shares, and stock options:
  Restricted Stock Stock Options
  Shares Weighted-Average Grant Date Fair Value Shares 
Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
Outstanding at December 31, 2016 218,316
 $27.59
 305,874
 $12.29
Granted 248,271
 $23.06
 
 $
Exercised (273,530) $21.01
 (109,433) $15.89
Forfeited (4,012) $29.96
 
 $
Expired 
 $
 (3,000) $30.50
Outstanding at December 31, 2017 189,045
 $31.11
 193,441
 $9.98
PNMR’s stock-based compensation program provides for performance and market targets through 2018. Included as granted and as exercised in the above table are 49,682 previously awarded shares that were earned for the 2014 and 2013

through 20142016 performance measurement period and approvedratified by the Board in February 20152017 (based upon achieving market targets at “target” levels, weighted at 60%, and not meeting performance targets, at “maximum” levels, weighted at 40%, for 2012 through 2014 performance period.). Excluded from the above table are 79,61997,697 previously awarded shares that were earned for the 20132015 through 20152017 performance measurement period and approvedratified by the Board in February 20162018 (based upon achieving market targets at above “target” levels, weighted at 60%40%, and performance targets at “threshold”below “target” levels, weighted at 40%60%), as well as maximums of 165,628137,036 and 168,258133,632 shares for the three-year performance periods ending in 20162018 and 20172019 that would be awarded if all performance and market criteria are achieved at maximum levels and all executives remain eligible.
 
In March 2012, the Company entered into a retention award agreement with its Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer under which she wouldwas to receive 135,000 shares of PNMR’s common stock if PNMR meetsmet specific market targets at the end of 2016 and she remainsremained an employee of the Company. Under the agreement, she would receivereceived 35,000 of the total shares ifin 2015 since PNMR achieved specificthe specified market targets at the end of 2014. The specified market target was achieved at the end of 20142016 and the Board approvedratified her receiving the 35,000remaining 100,000 shares, in February 2015, which shares are included as granted and exercised in the above table.table, in February 2017. The retention award was made under the PEP and was approved by the Board on February 28, 2012. The above table does not include any restricted stock shares that remain unvested under this retention award agreement.

Effective as of January 1, 2015, the Company entered into a retention award agreement with its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer under which he would receive awards of restricted stock if PNMR meets specificspecified performance targets at the end of 2016 and 2017 and he remains an employee of the Company. If PNMR achievesachieved the specific performance target for the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016, he wouldwas to receive $100,000 of PNMR common stock based on the market value per share on the grant date in early 2017. The specified performance target was achieved at the end of 2016 and the Board ratified him receiving $100,000 of PNMR common stock in February 2017 based on a market per share value of $36.30 on the grant date of March 3, 2017, or 2,754 shares, which are included in the above table. Similarly, if PNMR achievesachieved the specificspecified performance target for the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017, he wouldwas to receive $275,000 of PNMR common stock based on the market value per share on the grant date in early 2018. IfThe specified performance target was achieved at the target forend of 2017 and the first performance period isBoard ratified him receiving $275,000 of PNMR common stock in February 2018 based on the market value per share on the grant date in early March 2018. The above table does not met, butinclude the target for the second performance period is met, he would receive both awards, less any amount received previously under the agreement.restricted stock shares granted in 2018. The retention award was made under the PEP and was approved by the Board on December 9, 2014. The above table does not include any restricted stock shares under this retention award agreement.

In March 2015, the Company entered into aan additional retention award agreement with its Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer under which she would receive 53,859 shares of PNMR’s common stock if PNMR meets certain performance targets at the end of 2019 and she remains an employee of the Company. Under the agreement, she would receive 17,953 of the total shares if PNMR achieves specificspecified performance targets at the end of 2017. The specified performance target was achieved at the end of 2017 and the Board ratified her receiving the 17,953 shares in February 2018. The above table does not include any restricted stock shares under this retention award agreement. The retention award was made under the PEP and was approved by the Board on February 26, 2015. The above table does not include any restricted stock shares under this retention award agreement.

At December 31, 2015, the aggregate intrinsic value of stock options outstanding, all of which are exercisable, was $6.4 million with a weighted-average remaining contract life of 2.27 years. At December 31, 2015, the exercise price of 2,100 outstanding stock options was greater than the closing price of PNMR common stock on that date; therefore those options have no intrinsic value.
The following table provides additional information concerning stock options, and restricted stock activity including performance-based and market-based shares:
  Year Ended December 31,
Restricted Stock 2015 2014 2013
Weighted-average grant date fair value $20.34
 $21.27
 $20.03
Total fair value of restricted shares that vested (in thousands) $6,507
 $4,933
 $4,395
       
Stock Options      
Weighted-average grant date fair value of options granted $
 $
 $
Total fair value of options that vested (in thousands) $
 $
 $625
Total intrinsic value of options exercised (in thousands) $2,350
 $2,473
 $2,721

B- 83B - 82

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

At December 31, 2017, the aggregate intrinsic value of stock options outstanding, all of which are exercisable, was $5.9 million with a weighted-average remaining contract life of 1.55 years. At December 31, 2017, no outstanding stock options had an exercise price greater than the closing price of PNMR common stock on that date.
The following table provides additional information concerning restricted stock activity, including performance-based and market-based shares, and stock options:
  Year Ended December 31,
Restricted Stock 2017 2016 2015
Weighted-average grant date fair value $23.06
 $26.49
 $20.34
Total fair value of restricted shares that vested (in thousands) $5,747
 $5,079
 $6,507
       
Stock Options      
Weighted-average grant date fair value of options granted $
 $
 $
Total fair value of options that vested (in thousands) $
 $
 $
Total intrinsic value of options exercised (in thousands) $2,234
 $1,242
 $2,350

(14)Construction Program and Jointly-Owned Electric Generating Plants
PNM is a participant in several jointly-owned power plant projects. The primary operating or participation agreements for the joint projects expire in July 20162022 for SJGS, July 2041 for Four Corners, July 2022 for SJGS, December 2046 for Luna, and November 2047 for PVNGS. The Four Corners owners executed amendments to the agreements governing the operations of Four Corners that would extend those agreements until July 2041. The amendments are expected to become effective in July 2016.
PNM’s expenditures for additions to utility plant were $404.8309.1 million in 20152017, including expenditures on jointly-owned projects. TNMP does not participate in the ownership or operation of any generating plants, but incurred expenditures for additions to utility plant of $124.6145.5 million during 20152017. On a consolidated basis, PNMR’s expenditures for additions to utility plant were $558.6500.5 million in 20152017.
 
Joint Projects

Under the agreements for the jointly-owned projects, PNM has an undivided interest in each asset and liability of the project and records its pro-rata share of each item in the corresponding asset and liability account on PNM’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. Likewise, PNM records its pro-rata share of each item of operating and maintenance expenses for its jointly-owned plants within the corresponding operating expense account in its Consolidated Statements of Earnings. PNM is responsible for financing its share of the capital and operating costs of the joint projects.
At December 31, 20152017, PNM’s interests and investments in jointly-owned generating facilities are:
Station (Fuel Type)
Plant in
Service
 
Accumulated
Depreciation
 
Construction
Work in
Progress
 
Composite
Interest
 (In thousands)
SJGS (Coal) (1)
$1,083,331
 $(428,684) $20,117
 46.30%
PVNGS (Nuclear) (2)
$562,412
 $(164,549) $38,966
 10.20%
Four Corners Units 4 and 5 (Coal)$167,874
 $(102,559) $19,390
 13.00%
Luna (Gas)$69,259
 $(23,048) $33
 33.33%
Station (Fuel Type)
Plant in
Service
 
Accumulated
Depreciation(1)
 
Construction
Work in
Progress
 
Composite
Interest
 (In thousands)
SJGS (Coal) (2)
$920,950
 $(522,750) $8,512
 46.30%
PVNGS (Nuclear) (3)
$918,830
 $(353,054) $35,038
 10.20%
Four Corners Units 4 and 5 (Coal)$204,432
 $(100,914) $61,755
 13.00%
Luna (Gas)$70,995
 $(27,023) $(13) 33.33%
(1) 
As discussed in Note 16, the NMPRC has approved the shutdownIncludes cost of SJGS Units 2 and 3 as of December 31, 2017. At December 31, 2015, PNM’s carrying value for its current ownership share of SJGS Units 2 and 3 included plant in service of $468.2 million, accumulated depreciation and amortization of $193.3 million, and construction work in progress of $2.2 million for a net undepreciated net book value of $277.1 million, which amounts are included in the table above. At December 31, 2015, PNM recorded a regulatory disallowance of $127.6 million representing its estimate of the portion of the December 31, 2017 net book value of SJGS Units 2 and 3 that will not be recovered from ratepayers, which is reflected as a reduction of plant in service on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.removal.
(2)
See Note 16 for a discussion of the December 2017 shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and the restructuring of the ownership of SJGS Unit 4.
(3) 
Includes interest in PVNGS Unit 3, interest in common facilities for all PVNGS units, and owned interests in PVNGS Units 1 and 2., including improvements.

B - 83

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

San Juan Generating Station
PNM operates and jointly owns SJGS. SJGS Units Effective January 1, and 2 are owned on a 50% shared basis with Tucson. 2018, SJGS Unit 31 is owned 50% by PNM 41.8%and 50% by SCPPA,Tucson and8.2% by Tri-State. SJGS Unit 4 is owned 38.457%77.297% by PNM, 28.8% by MSR, 10.04% by Anaheim,including a 12.8% interest held as merchant plant, 8.475% by Farmington, 7.2% by Los Alamos, and 7.028% by UAMPS. See Note 16 for additional information about SJGS, including the agreement forshutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 in December 2017 and the restructuring of SJGS ownership. Under the restructuring agreement, PNM would own 64.5% of Unit 4, PNMR Development would own 12.8% of Unit 4, and SCPPA, Tri-State, MSR, and Anaheim would no longer have any ownership interest in SJGS following the December 31, 2017 restructuring. PNMR anticipates that the interest of PNMR Development will be transferred to PNM, as authorized by the NMPRC, prior to the restructuring date.
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
PNM is a participant in the three units of PVNGS, also known as the Arizona Nuclear Power Project, with APS (the operating agent), SRP, EPE, SCE, SCPPA, and The Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles. PNM has a 10.2% undivided interest in PVNGS, with portions of its interests in Units 1 and 2 held under leases. See Note 7 for additional information co

B- 84

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

ncerningconcerning the PVNGS leases, including PNM’s notices that it will exercise its option to purchase of the assets underlying certain of the leases at the expiration of the leases on January 15, 2016.2016, and Note 17 for the NMPRC’s treatment of those purchases in the ratemaking process.
Operation of each of the three PVNGS units requires an operating license from the NRC. The NRC issued full power operating licenses for Unit 1 in June 1985, Unit 2 in April 1986, and Unit 3 in November 1987. The full power operating licenses were originally for a period of 40 years and authorize APS, as operating agent for PVNGS, to operate the three PVNGS units. OnIn April 21, 2011, the NRC approved extensions in the operating licenses for the plants for 20 years through June 2045 for Unit 1, April 2046 for Unit 2, and November 2047 for Unit 3. In April 2010, APS entered into a Municipal Effluent Purchase and Sale Agreement that provides effluent water rights necessary for cooling purposes at PVNGS through 2050.
Four Corners Power Plant
PNM is a participant in two units of Four Corners with APS (the operating agent), EPE,an affiliate of APS, SRP, and Tucson. PNM has a 13.0% undivided interest in Units 4 and 5 of Four Corners. The Four Corners plant site is leased from the Navajo Nation and is also subject to an easement from the federal government. APS, on behalf of the Four Corners participants, negotiated amendments to an existing facility lease with the Navajo Nation, which extends the Four Corners leasehold interest from 2016 to 2041. See Note 16 for additional information about Four Corners.
Luna Energy Facility
Luna is a combined-cycle power plant near Deming, New Mexico. Luna is owned equally by PNM, Tucson, and Samchully Power & Utilities 1, LLC. The operation and maintenance of the facility has been contracted to North American Energy Services.
Construction Program
The Company anticipates making substantial capital expenditures for the construction and acquisition of utility plant and other property and equipment. An unaudited summary of the budgeted construction expenditures, including expenditures for jointly-owned projects, and nuclear fuel, is as follows:
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
    (In millions)        (In millions)    
PNM$396.4
 $295.1
 $269.3
 $220.3
 $183.7
 $1,364.8
$295.0
 $339.0
 $313.4
 $315.8
 $493.7
 $1,756.9
TNMP114.6
 101.1
 114.3
 117.0
 126.3
 573.3
185.8
 170.5
 170.0
 170.5
 170.1
 866.9
Corporate and Other35.8
 18.9
 14.1
 15.1
 15.0
 98.9
19.4
 17.3
 17.0
 17.5
 17.1
 88.3
Total PNMR$546.8
 $415.1
 $397.7
 $352.4
 $325.0
 $2,037.0
$500.2
 $526.8
 $500.4
 $503.8
 $680.9
 $2,712.1
 
The construction expenditure estimates are under continuing review and subject to ongoing adjustment, as well as to Board review and approval. The construction expenditures above include estimated amounts of $1.3 million related to environmental upgrades at SJGS to address regional haze and $100.8 million related to the identified sources of replacement capacity under the revised plan for compliance described in Note 16. The above construction expenditures also include$7.9 million for environmental upgrades at Four Corners, estimated$72.8 million for 50 MW of new solar facilities included in PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan, approximately $170.0 million for an anticipated expansion of PNM’s transmission system, and approximately $100.0 million in 2021 and $300.0 million in 2022 for the costs of replacement resources related to be $88.7 million,the potential shutdown of SJGS Units 1 and 4 in 2022. See Note 17. Expenditures for the $163.3 million purchaseexpansion of PNM’s transmission system and SJGS replacement sources are subject to obtaining necessary approvals of the assets underlying three ofNMPRC. PNM will be required to file CCN applications with the PVNGS Unit 2 leases at the expiration ofNMPRC to obtain those leases on January 15, 2016.approvals.

(15)Asset Retirement Obligations
AROs are recorded based on the determination of underlying assumptions, such as discount rates, estimates of the future costs for decommissioning, and the timing of the removal activities to be performed. Any changes in these assumptions underlying the required calculations may require revisions to the estimated AROs when identified. A reconciliation of the ARO liability is as follows:

B- 85B - 84

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

 PNMR PNM TNMP
 (In thousands)
Liability at December 31, 2012$85,893
 $85,042
 $732
Liabilities incurred
 
 
Liabilities settled(79) (67) (12)
Accretion expense7,245
 7,174
 62
Revisions to estimated cash flows (1)
3,076
 3,076
 
Liability at December 31, 201396,135
 95,225
 782
Liabilities incurred
 
 
Liabilities settled
 
 
Accretion expense7,984
 7,906
 66
Revisions to estimated cash flows51
 51
 
Liability at December 31, 2014104,170
 103,182
 848
Liabilities incurred
 
 
Liabilities settled(730) (506) (224)
Accretion expense8,625
 8,543
 71
Revisions to estimated cash flows(2)
(170) (170) 
Liability at December 31, 2015$111,895
 $111,049
 $695
(1)
Based on studies to estimate the amount and timing of future ARO expenditures. PNM has an ARO for PVNGS that includes the obligations for nuclear decommissioning of that facility. In 2013, a new decommissioning study for PVNGS was implemented reflecting updated cash flow estimates, including the extended operating licenses. The new study resulted in an increase of $0.5 million to the ARO. In addition, a new decommissioning study for SJGS was implemented in 2013, resulting in a $2.5 million increase to the ARO.

(2)
(15)
Based on studies to estimate the amount and timing of future ARO expenditures. PNM has an ARO for Four Corners that includes obligations for decommissioning of that facility. In 2015, a new decommissioning study for Four Corners was implemented reflecting updated cash flow estimates. The new study resulted in an increase of $1.0 million to the ARO. In addition, a new decommissioning study for SJGS was implemented in 2015, resulting in a $1.2 million decrease to the ARO.Asset Retirement Obligations
AROs are recorded based on studies to estimate the amount and timing of future ARO expenditures and reflect underlying assumptions, such as discount rates, estimates of the future costs for decommissioning, and the timing of the removal activities to be performed. Approximately 80% of PNM’s total ARO liabilities is related to nuclear decommissioning of PVNGS. PNM is responsible for all decommissioning obligations related to its entire interest in PVNGS, including portions under lease both during and after termination of the leases. Studies of the decommissioning costs of PVNGS, as well as SJGS and Four Corners are performed periodically and revisions to the ARO liabilities are recorded. Changes in the assumptions underlying the calculations may also require revisions to the estimated AROs when identified. A reconciliation of the ARO liabilities is as follows:
 PNMR PNM TNMP
 (In thousands)
Liability at December 31, 2014$104,170
 $103,182
 $848
Liabilities incurred
 
 
Liabilities settled(730) (506) (224)
Accretion expense8,625
 8,543
 71
Revisions to estimated cash flows(170) (170) 
Liability at December 31, 2015111,895
 111,049
 695
Liabilities incurred
 
 
Liabilities settled(14) (14) 
Accretion expense9,170
 9,098
 59
Revisions to estimated cash flows6,468
 6,468
 
Liability at December 31, 2016127,519
 126,601
 754
Liabilities incurred(1)
1,854
 1,853
 
Liabilities settled(968) (944) (24)
Accretion expense10,680
 10,603
 63
Revisions to estimated cash flows7,594
 7,594
 
Liability at December 31, 2017$146,679
 $145,707
 $793

(1)Represents the obligation related to the additional ownership interest in SJGS Unit 4 that PNM acquired on December 31, 2017 due to the restructuring of the ownership of SJGS.

(16)Commitments and Contingencies

Overview
There are various claims and lawsuits pending against the Company. The Company also is subject to federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations and periodically participates in the investigation and remediation of various sites. In addition, the Company periodically enters into financial commitments in connection with its business operations. Also, the Company is involved in various legal and regulatory (Note 17) proceedings in the normal course of its business. It is not possible at this time for the Company to determine fully the effect of all litigation and other legal and regulatory proceedings on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
With respect to some of the items listed below, the Company has determined that a loss is not probable or that, to the extent probable, cannot be reasonably estimated. In some cases, the Company is not able to predict with any degree of certainty the range of possible loss that could be incurred. Nevertheless, the Company assesses legal and regulatory matters based on current information and makes judgments concerning their potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of any damages sought, and the probability of success. Such judgments are made with the understanding that the outcome of any litigation, investigation, andor other legal proceeding is inherently uncertain. In accordance with GAAP, the Company records liabilities for matters where it is probable a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable.

B- 86

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

The actual outcomes of the items listed below could ultimately differ from the judgments made and the differences could be material. The Company cannot make any assurances that the amount of reserves or potential insurance coverage will be sufficient

B - 85

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

to cover the cash obligations that might be incurred as a result of litigation or regulatory proceedings. Except as otherwise disclosed, the Company does not expect that any known lawsuits, environmental costs, and commitments will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies Related to the Environment

PVNGS Decommissioning Funding

The costs of decommissioning a nuclear power plant are substantial. PNM is responsible for all decommissioning obligations related to its entire interest in PVNGS, including portions under lease both during and after termination of the leases. PNM has a program for funding its share of decommissioning costs for PVNGS, including portions held under leases. The nuclear decommissioning funding program is invested in equities and fixed income instruments in qualified and non-qualified trusts. PNM funded $2.0 million, $4.2 million, and $4.9 million in each offor the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014,2017, 2016, and 20132015 into the qualified and non-qualified trust funds. The market value of the trusts at December 31, 20152017 and 20142016 was $249.1293.7 million and $244.6253.9 million.

Nuclear Spent Fuel and Waste Disposal
 
Nuclear power plant operators are required to enter into spent fuel disposal contracts with the DOE that require the DOE to accept and dispose of all spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes generated by domestic power reactors. Although the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required the DOE to develop a permanent repository for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel by 1998, the DOE announced that it would not be able to open the repository by 1998 and sought to excuse its performance of these requirements. In November 1997, the D.C.DC Circuit issued a decision preventing the DOE from excusing its own delay, but refused to order the DOE to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel. Based on this decision and the DOE’s delay, a number of utilities, including APS (on behalf of itself and the other PVNGS owners, including PNM), filed damages actions against the DOE in the Court of Federal Claims. The lawsuits filed by APS alleged that damages were incurred due to DOE’s continuing failure to remove spent nuclear fuel and high levelhigh-level waste from PVNGS. In August 2014, APS and DOE entered into a settlement agreement, which establishesestablished a process for the payment of claims for costs incurred through December 31, 2016.incurred. Under the settlement agreement, APS must submit claims annually for payment of allowable costs. PNM’s share of settlements under this process were $5.9 million, substantially all of which was credited back to PNM’s customers, for costs incurred from January 2007 through June 2011, which wasIn 2015, PNM recorded in the fourth quarter of 2014, and $4.3$5.6 million, including $3.1$3.6 million credited back to PNM’s customers, for its share of the settlement under this process for costs incurred from July 2011 through June 2014, which was recorded in the first quarter of 2015. In the second quarter of 2015, PNM recorded claims of $1.3 million, including $0.5 million credited back to PNM’s customers, for costs incurred between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015. Thereafter, PNM began recording estimated claims quarterly. The settlement agreement terminates upon payment of costs incurred throughhas been extended to December 31, 2016, unless extended by mutual written agreement.2019.

PNM estimates that it will incur approximately $58.057.7 million (in 20132016 dollars) for its share of the costs related to the on-site interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at PVNGS during the term of the operating licenses. PNM accrues these costs as a component of fuel expense as the fuel is consumed. At December 31, 20152017 and 2014,2016, PNM had a liability for interim storage costs of $12.212.3 million and $12.312.1 million included in other deferred credits.

On June 8, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision on a challenge by several states and environmental groups of the NRC’s rulemaking regarding temporary storage and permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel.  The petitioners had challenged the NRC’s 2010 update to the agency’s Waste Confidence Decision and temporary storage rule (the “Waste Confidence Decision”). The D.C. Circuit found that the Waste Confidence Decision update constituted a major federal action, which, consistent with NEPA, requires either an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact from the NRC’s actions.  The D.C. Circuit found that the NRC’s evaluation of the environmental risks from spent nuclear fuel was deficient, and therefore remanded the Waste Confidence Decision update for further action consistent with NEPA. On September 6, 2012, the NRC commissioners issued a directive to the NRC staff to proceed with development of a generic EIS to support an updated Waste Confidence Decision. 

In September 2013, the NRC issued its draft generic EIS to support an updated Waste Confidence Decision. On August 26, 2014, the NRC approved a final rule on the environmental effects of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel. The continued storage rule adopted the findings of the generic EIS regarding the environmental impacts of storing spent fuel at any reactor site after the reactor’s licensed period of operations. As a result, those generic impacts do not need to be re-analyzed in the environmental

B- 87

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

reviews for individual licenses. Although PVNGS had not been involved in any licensing actions affected by the D.C. Circuit’s June 8, 2012 decision, the NRC lifted its suspension on final licensing actions on all nuclear power plant licenses and renewals that went into effect when the D.C. Circuit issued its June 2012 decision. The August 2014 final rule has been subject to continuing legal challenges before the NRC and the United States Court of Appeals. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

PVNGS has sufficient capacity at its on-site ISFSI to store all of the nuclear fuel that will be irradiated during the initial operating license period, which ends in December 2027.  Additionally, PVNGS has sufficient capacity at its on-site ISFSI to store a portion of the fuel that will be irradiated during the period of extended operation, which ends in November 2047.  If uncertainties regarding the United States government’s obligation to accept and store spent fuel are not favorably resolved, APS will evaluate alternative storage solutions that may obviate the need to expand the ISFSI to accommodate all of the fuel that will be irradiated during the period of extended operation.

On June 8, 2012, the DC Circuit issued its decision on a challenge by several states and environmental groups of the NRC’s rulemaking regarding temporary storage and permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel.  The petitioners had challenged the NRC’s 2010 update to the agency’s Waste Confidence Decision and temporary storage rule (the “Waste Confidence Decision”). The DC Circuit found that the Waste Confidence Decision update constituted a major federal action, which, consistent with NEPA, requires either an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact from the NRC’s actions.  The DC Circuit found that the NRC’s evaluation of the environmental risks from spent nuclear fuel was deficient and, therefore, remanded the Waste Confidence Decision update for further action consistent with NEPA. On September 6, 2012, the NRC commissioners issued a directive to the NRC staff to proceed with development of a generic EIS to support an updated Waste Confidence Decision, which was issued in September 2013.  On August 26, 2014, the NRC approved a final rule on the environmental effects of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel. The continued storage rule adopted the findings of the generic EIS regarding the environmental impacts of storing spent fuel at any reactor site after the reactor’s licensed period of operations.

B - 86

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

As a result, those generic impacts do not need to be re-analyzed in the environmental reviews for individual licenses. The August 2014 final rule has been subject to continuing legal challenges before the NRC and the United States Court of Appeals. On May 19, 2016, the NRC denied petitions filed by multiple petitioners to revise the August 2014 rule. The DC Circuit issued an order upholding the August 2014 rule on June 3, 2016 and denied a subsequent petition for rehearing on August 8, 2016.

In 2011, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Nuclear Energy Institute challenged, in the DC Circuit, DOE’s 2010 determination of the adequacy of the one tenth of a cent per KWh fee (the “one-mill fee”) paid by the nation’s commercial nuclear power plant owners pursuant to their individual contracts with the DOE. In June 2012, the D.C. Circuit held that DOE failed to conduct a sufficient fee analysis in making the 2010 determination. The D.C. Circuit remanded the 2010 determination to the DOE with instructions to conduct a new fee adequacy determination within six months. In February 2013, upon completion of DOE’s revised one-mill fee adequacy determination, the court reopened the proceedings. On November 19, 2013, the D.C. Circuit ordered the DOE to notify Congress of DOE’s intention to suspend collecting annual fees for nuclear waste disposal from nuclear power plant operators. On January 3, 2014, the DOE notified Congress of its intention to suspend collection of the one-mill fee, subject to Congress’ disapproval.disapproval, as ordered by the DC Circuit. On May 16, 2014, the DOE adjusted the fee to zero. PNM anticipatescannot predict if there will be challenges to this action and is unable to predict its ultimate outcome.or the potential outcome of such challenges.

The Clean Air Act
 
Regional Haze

In 1999, EPA developed a regional haze program and regional haze rules under the CAA. The rule directs each of the 50 states to address regional haze. Pursuant to the CAA, states have the primary role to regulate visibility requirements by promulgating SIPs. States are required to establish goals for improving visibility in national parks and wilderness areas (also known as Class I areas) and to develop long-term strategies for reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause visibility impairment in their own states and for preventing degradation in other states. States must establish a series of interim goals to ensure continued progress. Theprogress by adopting a new SIP every ten years. In the first SIP planning period, specifies setting reasonable progress goals for improving visibility in Class I areas by the year 2018. In July 2005, EPA promulgated its final regional haze rule guidelines for states were required to conduct BART determinations for certain covered facilities, including utility boilers, built between 1962 and 1977 that have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of visibility impairing pollution. If it is demonstrated that the emissions from these sources cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area, then BART must be installed by 2018. For all future SIP planning period, states must evaluate whether additional emissions reduction measures may be needed to continue making reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions.

On January 10, 2017, EPA published in the Federal Register revisions to the regional haze rule. EPA also provided a companion draft guidance document for public comment. The new rule delayed the due date for the next cycle of SIPs from 2019 to 2021, altered the planning process that states must employ in determining whether to impose “reasonable progress” emission reduction measures, and gave new authority to federal land managers to seek additional emission reduction measures outside of the states’ planning process. Finally, the rule made several procedural changes to the regional haze program, including changes to the schedule and process for states to file 5-year progress reports. EPA’s new rule was challenged by numerous parties. On January 19, 2018, EPA filed a motion to hold the case in abeyance in light of several letters issued by EPA on January 17, 2018 to grant various petitions for reconsideration of the 2017 rule revisions. Although EPA’s decision to revisit the rule is not a determination on the merits of the issues raised in those petitions, EPA is likely to propose and take comment on additional revisions to the regional haze rules in the near future. PNM is evaluating the potential impacts of this rule.

SJGS
BART Determination ProcessCompliance SJGS is a source that is subject to the statutory obligations of the CAA to reduce visibility impacts. The State of New Mexico submitted its SIP on the regional haze and interstate transport elements of the visibility rules for review by EPA in June 2011. The SIP ruled that BART required SJGS to reduce NOx emissions from SJGS wasby installing selective non-catalytic reduction technology (“SNCR”). as BART. Nevertheless, in August 2011, EPA published itsa FIP, stating that it was required to do so by virtue of a consent decree it had entered into with an environmental group in litigation concerning the interstate transport requirements of the CAA. The FIPwhich included a regional haze BART determination for SJGS that required installation of selective catalytic reduction technology (“SCR”) as BART on all four units by September 21, 2016.

During 2012 and early 2013, PNM, as the operating agent for SJGS, engaged in discussions with NMED and EPA regarding an alternative to the FIP and SIP. PNM, NMED, and EPA agreed on February 15, 2013 to pursueSIP, which resulted in a revised BART path to comply with federal visibility rules at SJGS. The terms of the non-binding agreement would result inthat included the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 by the end of 2017 and the installation of SNCRs on Units 1 and 4 by the later of January 31, 2016 or 15 months after EPA approval of a revised SIP.SIP (the “RSIP”). EPA issued final rules, which became effective on November 10, 2014, approving the RSIP and withdrawing the FIP.


B- 88B - 87

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

In accordance with the revised plan, PNM submitted a new BART analysis to NMED on April 1, 2013 and NMED developed a RSIP, both of which reflect the terms of the non-binding agreement. The EIB approved the RSIP in September 2013. EPA’s final rules approving the RSIP and withdrawing the FIP became effective on November 10, 2014.

In addition to the SNCR equipment required by the RSIP, the NSR permit, which was required to be obtained in order to install the SNCRs, specified that SJGS Units 1 and 4 be converted to balanced draft technology (“BDT”). The requirement to install BDT was made binding and enforceable in the NSR permit issued by NMED that accompanied the RSIP submitted to the EPA. EPA’s rule approving the RSIP specifically references the NSR permit by including a condition that requires “modification of the fan systems on Units 1 and 4 to achieve ‘balanced’ draft configuration ….”

Implementation Activities Due toFollowing issuance of the compliance deadline set forth in the FIP, PNM entered into a contract for installation of SCRs on SJGS in October 2012. At that time, PNM estimated the total cost to install SCRs on all four units of SJGS to be between approximately $824 million and $910 million, including BDT equipment to assist with compliance with the NAAQS requirements and to eliminate all fugitive boiler emissions. The construction contract was terminated in December 2014 following approval of the RSIP by EPA. PNM had previously indicated it estimated the cost of SNCRs on all four units of SJGS to be between approximately $85 million and $90 million based on a conceptual design study. Along with the SNCR installation, additional BDT equipment would be required to be installed, the cost of which had been estimated to total between approximately $105 million and $110 million for all four units of SJGS. Based upon its current SJGS ownership interest at that time, PNM’s share of the costs described above would have been about 46.3%.

Following the February 2013 development of the alternative BART compliance plan, PNM began taking steps to prepare for the potential installation of SNCR and BDT equipment on Units 1 and 4 and entered into contracts for the equipment and installation of SNCRs, including BDT equipment, on SJGS Units 1 and 4.work. Installation of SNCRs on Unit 1 and BDT equipment on both Units 1 and 4 was completed in 2015 and installation of SNCRs on Unit 4 was completed in January 2016, which dates were within the timeframe contained in the RSIP. PNM’s share of the total costs for SNCRs and BDT equipment was $78.0$77.7 million. See Note 17 for information concerning the NMPRC’s treatment of BDT in PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case. Although operating costs will be reduced due to the retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3, the operating costs for SJGS Units 1 and 4 will increasehave increased with the installation of SNCR and BDT equipment.

NMPRC FilingOn December 20, 2013, PNM made a filing with the NMPRC requesting certain approvals necessary to effectuate the RSIP. In this filing, PNM requested:

Permission to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 at December 31, 2017 and to recover over 20 years their net book value at that date along with a regulated return on those costs
A CCN to include PNM’s ownership of PVNGS Unit 3, amounting to 134 MW, as a resource to serve New Mexico retail customers at a proposed value of $2,500 per KW, effective January 1, 2018
An order allowing cost recovery for PNM’s share of the installation of SNCR and BDT equipment to comply with NAAQS requirements on SJGS Units 1 and 4, not to exceed a total cost of $82 million

PNM’s filing also addressed replacement of the capacity from the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 which, as proposed,(which would have reducedreduce PNM’s ownership in SJGS by 340 MW, including418 MW), a possible increase in PNM’s ownership in SJGS Unit 4, the identification of a new 177 MW natural gas-fired generation source, and 40 MW of new utility-scale solar PV. PNM received approval to construct the 40 MW of solar PV facilities in its 2015 Renewable Energy Plan. See Note 17.

PNM’s requests in the December 20, 2013 NMPRC filing were based on the status of the negotiations among the SJGS owners at that time regarding ownership restructuring and other matters (see SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters below). In July 2014, PNM filed a notice with the NMPRC regarding the status of the negotiations among the SJGS participants, including that the SJGS participants reached non-binding agreements in principle on the ownership restructuring of SJGS.

On October 1, 2014, PNM and certain intervenors filed a stipulation with the NMPRC that if approved by the NMPRC, would have settled all matters in PNM’s filing. Statements of opposition were filed by other intervenors. A public hearing in the NMPRC case was held in January 2015. On April 8, 2015, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued a Certification of Stipulation, which recommended the NMPRC reject the stipulation as proposed. The certification recommended approvals of certain provisions in the stipulation, as well as modifications or rejections of other provisions. Among other things, the certification cited the lack of final restructuring and post-2017 coal supply agreements for SJGS.

B- 89

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013


On May 27, 2015, the NMPRC issued an order requiring PNM to file executed restructuring and coal supply agreements by July 1, 2015, which date was subsequently extended to August 1, 2015. On July 1, 2015, PNM filed executed coal supply and related agreements, described under Coal Supply below, with the NMPRC. On July 31, 2015, PNM filed executed restructuring agreements.

In June 2015, a NMPRC Commissioner issued an order designating a facilitator to determine whether an uncontested settlement among some or all of the parties in this case could be accomplished. On August 13, 2015, as a result of the facilitation process, PNM, the staff of the NMPRC, the NMAG, Western Resource Advocates, and the Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy filed a settlement agreement with the NMPRC. NMIEC, Interwest Energy Alliance, and New Mexico Independent Power Producers subsequently joined in this agreement and NEE filed in opposition to the agreement. The stipulating parties agreed that the October 2014 stipulation should be approved, as modified by the settlement agreement (collectively, the “Stipulated Settlement”). Under

The Hearing Examiner scheduled a hearing on PNM’s application concerning BART for SJGS to begin on October 13, 2015. NEE previously filed motions before the termsNMPRC requesting that four of the five NMPRC commissioners recuse themselves, alleging they had improper ex-parte communications, were biased, and had pre-judged the outcome of the BART case. Each of the four commissioners declined to recuse themselves. On October 5, 2015, NEE filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Request for Stay in the NM Supreme Court requesting the four commissioners be recused from this case and that PNM’s application be dismissed.  On October 9, 2015, the NM Supreme Court issued orders that allowed the hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner to proceed, but ordered that any action by the NMPRC be stayed, pending a decision by the NM Supreme Court on

B - 88

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

NEE’s petition. The hearing on the Stipulated Settlement:Settlement was held from October 13, 2015 through October 20, 2015. Oral argument on NEE’s petition was held before the NM Supreme Court on November 9, 2015. On November 9, 2015, the NM Supreme Court denied NEE’s petition.

On December 16, 2015, following oral argument, the NMPRC issued an order adopting the Stipulated Settlement. As provided in that order:

PNM willwould retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 (PNM’s current ownership interest totalswas 418 MW) atby December 31, 2017 and recover, over 20 years, 50% of their undepreciated net book value at that date and earn a regulated return on those costs
PNM will bewas granted a CCN to acquire an unconditional CCN foradditional 132 MW in SJGS Unit 4, effective January 1, 2018, with an initial book value of zero, plus the costs of SNCR and other capital additions (an aggregate of $20.7 million)
PNM will bewas granted a CCN for 134 MW of PVNGS Unit 3 with an initial rate base value equal to the book value as of December 31, 2017, including transmission assets associated with PVNGS Unit 3 (estimated to be approximately $150(an aggregate of $154.9 million)
No later than December 31, 2018, and before entering into a binding agreement for post-2022 coal supply for SJGS, PNM will file its position and supporting testimony in ana NMPRC case to determine the extent to which SJGS should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after mid-2022; all parties to the stipulation agree to support this case being decided within six months (see Other SJGS Matters below and Note 17)
PNM will bewas authorized to acquire 65 MW of SJGS Unit 4 as excluded utilitymerchant plant; PNM and PNMR commit that no further coal-fired merchant plant will be acquired at any time by PNM, PNMR, or any PNM affiliate; PNM is not precluded from seeking a CCN to include the 65 MW or other coal capacity in rate base
Beginning January 1, 2020, for every MWh produced by 197 MW of coal-fired generation from PNM’s ownership share of SJGS, PNM will acquire and retire one MWh of RECs or allowances that include a zero-CO2 emission attribute compliant with EPA’s Clean Power Plan; this REC retirement is in addition to what is required to meet the RPS; the cost of these RECs are to be capped at $7.0 million per year and will be recovered in rates; PNM should purchase EPA-compliant RECs from New Mexico renewable generation unless those RECs are more costly
PNM willwould accelerate recovery of SNCR costs on SJGS Units 1 and 4 so that the costs are fully recovered by July 1, 2022; cost2022 (cost recovery for PNM’s BDT project on those units will be determinedis discussed in PNM’s next general rate case consistent with the Certification of StipulationNote 17)
NotPNM would not recover approximately $20 million of other costs incurred in connection with CAA compliance
The NMPRC would issue a Notice of Proposed Dismissal in PNM’s 2014 IRP docket will be closed without other NMPRC action

The Hearing Examiner scheduled a hearing on PNM’s application concerning BART for SJGS to begin on October 13, 2015. NEE previously filed motions before the NMPRC requesting that four of the five NMPRC commissioners recuse themselves, alleging they had improper ex-parte communications, were biased, and had pre-judged the outcome of the BART case. Each of the four commissioners declined to recuse themselves. On October 5, 2015, NEE filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Request for Stay in the NMSC requesting the four commissioners be recused from this case and that PNM’s application be dismissed.  On October 9, 2015, the NMSC issued orders that allowed the hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner to proceed, but ordered that any action by the NMPRC be stayed, pending a decision by the NMSC on NEE’s petition. The hearing on the Stipulated Settlement was held from October 13, 2015 through October 20, 2015. Oral argument on NEE’s petition was held before the NMSC on November 9, 2015. On November 9, 2015, the NMSC denied NEE’s petition.

On November 16, 2015, the Hearing Examiner issued a Certification of Stipulation, essentially adopting the Stipulated Settlement. On December 16, 2015, following oral argument, the NMPRC issued a final order adopting the Certification of Stipulation issued by the Hearing Examiner.  The Hearing Examiner’s certification included a non-substantive change to the Stipulated Settlement that required the signatories to the Stipulated Settlement to file their agreement to the change. On December

B- 90

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

22, 2015, PNM filed the Signatories’ Notice of Agreement and Acceptance Regarding Modified Stipulation as Further Modified by Final Order. 

At December 31, 2015, PNM’s carrying value for its current ownership share of SJGS Units 2 and 3 included plant in service of $468.2 million, accumulated depreciation and amortization (including cost of removal) of $193.3 million, and construction work in progress of $2.2 million for a net undepreciated net book value of $277.1 million. PNM estimatesestimated the undepreciated net book value of SJGS Units 2 and 3 at December 31, 2017 willwould be approximately $255.3 million, 50% of which would be recovered over a 20 year20-year period, including a return on the unrecovered amount at PNM’s WACC. At December 31, 2015, PNM recorded a $127.6 million regulatory disallowance to reflect the write-off of the 50% of the estimated December 31, 2017 net book value that willwould not be recovered. The ultimate amount of the disallowance will be equal to the actual December 31, 2017 undepreciated net book values of SJGS Units 2 and 3. Accordingly, the amount initially recorded will be adjusted periodically to reflect changes in the projected December 31, 2017 net book values. A regulatory disallowance of $21.6 million was also recorded at December 31, 2015 for other unrecoverable costs based on the approved Stipulated Settlement. The new coal mine reclamation arrangement entered into in conjunction with the new coal supply agreement (“SJGS CSA”), described under Coal Supply below, resulted in a $16.5 million increase in the liability recorded for coal mine reclamation. The expense recorded for this increase and the above disallowances, aggregating $165.7 million, is included in regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings (Loss).Earnings. In addition, the shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 willwould result in the reversal of certain deferred income tax items. The estimated impact of these tax items resulted in an expense of $1.8 million being recorded at December 31, 2015, which amount inis included in income tax expense.

On January 14, 2016, NEE filed, withexpense on the NMSC, a NoticeConsolidated Statement of Appeal of the NMPRC’s December 16, 2016 final order. In addition, on February 5, 2016, NEE filed, with the NMPRC, a motion for reconsideration of that final order based on recent developments related to the loan made by NM Capital to facilitate the sale of SJCC, which is described under Coal Supply below. NEE alleges the loan is a transaction that, under the New Mexico Public Utility Act, requires prior NMPRC approval. PNM filed its response to NEE’s motion for reconsideration on February 18, 2016.Earnings.

SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters – Currently, SJGS is jointly owned byDuring 2016, PNM and eight other entities, including three participants that operate inrevised its estimates of the State of California. Furthermore, each participant does not have the same ownership interest in each unit. The SJPPA that governs the operationDecember 31, 2017 projected book value of SJGS expires on July 1, 2022. In connection with the requirement for SJGS to comply with the CAA, the California participants indicated that, under California law, they may be prohibited from making significant capital improvements to SJGS and expressed the intent to exit their ownership in SJGS no later than July 1, 2022. One other participant also expressed a similar intent to exit ownership in the plant. The exiting participants currently own 50.0% of SJGS Unit 3 and 38.8% of SJGS Unit 4, but none of SJGS Units 1 and 2. PNM currently owns 50.0% of SJGS Units 1, 2 and 3 and 38.5%the other unrecoverable costs, which resulted in a net expense of $3.7 million, consisting of a $0.9 million expense due to a revision of the estimated net book value of SJGS Unit 4.

TheUnits 2 and 3, a $4.5 million expense related to a refinement of the estimated liability for coal mine reclamation resulting from the new coal mine reclamation arrangement, and a $1.7 million reduction of the other unrecoverable costs that is reflected in regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statement of Earnings. In addition, PNMR Development recorded an expense of $0.6 million in 2016 for costs it was obligated to reimburse the other SJGS participants engagedunder the restructuring arrangement, which is included in mediated negotiations concerningother deductions on the implementationConsolidated Statement of the RSIP to address BART at SJGS. Along with shifts in ownership among participants, the discussions among the SJGS participants regarding restructuring included, among other matters, the treatment of plant decommissioning obligations, mine reclamation obligations, environmental matters, and certain ongoing operating costs.

In June 2014, the SJGS participants reached a non-binding agreement that identified the participants who would be exiting active participation in SJGS effectiveEarnings. At December 31, 2017 and participants, including PNM, who would retain an interest in2016, the ongoing operation of one or more units of SJGS. The agreement provided the essential terms of restructured ownership of SJGS between the exiting participants and the remaining participants and addresses other related matters, indicating that the exiting participants would remain obligatedcarrying value for their proportionate shares of environmental, mine reclamation, and certain other legacy liabilities that are attributable to activities that occurred prior to their exit. Also, in June 2014, a non-binding term sheet was approved by all of the remaining participants that provided the essential terms of restructured ownership of SJGS among the remaining participants. As part of the non-binding terms, PNM stated that it would acquire an additional 132 MW in SJGS Unit 4 effective December 31, 2017. There would be no initial cost for PNM to acquire the additional 132 MW although PNM’s share of capital improvements, including the costs of installing SNCR and BDT equipment, and operating expenses would increase to reflect the increased ownership percentage. The acquisition of 132 MW of SJGS Unit 4 would result in PNM’scurrent ownership share of SJGS Unit 4 being 64.5%Units 2 and an aggregate3 was comprised of 58.7%plant in SJGS Units 1service of $471.8 million and 4. These non-binding arrangements recognized that, prior to executing a binding restructuring agreement, the remaining participants would need to have greater certainty in regard to taccumulated depreciation and amortization (including cost of removal) of $203.9 million

B- 91B - 89

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

he economic costfor a net undepreciated book value of $267.9 million, offset by 50% (which equaled $128.6 million) of the anticipated December 31, 2017 net undepreciated book value of SJGS Units 2 and availability of fuel3 that will not be recovered, resulting in the net carrying value for SJGS Units 2 and 3 being $139.3 million at December 31, 2016.

SJGS Unit 3 was shut down on December 19, 2017 and SJGS Unit 2 was shut down on December 20, 2017. At shutdown, the carrying value for PNM’s ownership share of SJGS Units 2 and 3 was comprised of plant in service of $439.4 million and accumulated depreciation and amortization (including cost of removal) of $188.3 million for a net book value of $251.1 million. As of December 31, 2017, these amounts were written off and offset by previously recorded losses of $128.6 million. PNM also recorded a regulatory asset of $125.5 million for the period after50% of the undepreciated book value that is to be recovered from ratepayers pursuant to the December 15, 2015 NMPRC order described above. This resulted in the reversal of previously recorded losses of $3.0 million being recorded at December 31, 2017. As discussed underIn addition, PNM recognized a reversal of $1.0 million of previously recorded losses for other unrecoverable costs. These reversals, which total $4.0 million, are included in regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings.

On January 14, 2016, NEE filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court of the NMPRC’s December 16, 2015 order. On July 22, 2016, NEE filed a brief alleging that the NMPRC’s decision violated New Mexico statutes and NMPRC regulations because PNM did not adequately consider replacement resources other than those proposed by PNM, the NMPRC did not require PNM to adequately address and mitigate ratepayer risk, the NMPRC unlawfully shifted the burden of proof, and the NMPRC’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.  Answer briefs refuting NEE’s claims were filed on November 2, 2016 by PNM, the NMPRC, and certain intervenors. Reply briefs were filed by NEE on January 9, 2017 and the parties presented oral argument to the court on January 25, 2017. The court has not rendered a decision on the appeal and there is no required time frame for a decision. In addition, on March 31, 2016, NEE filed a complaint with the NMPRC against PNM regarding the financing provided by NM Capital to facilitate the sale of SJCC (see Coal Supply below,below). The complaint alleges that PNM failed to comply with its discovery obligation in the SJGS abandonment case and requests the NMPRC investigate whether the financing transactions could adversely affect PNM’s ability to provide electric service to its retail customers. PNM responded to the complaint on May 4, 2016. The NMPRC has taken no action on this matter. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of these matters.

SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters – Prior to December 31, 2017, SJGS was jointly owned by PNM and eight other entities, including three participants that operate in the State of California. Furthermore, each participant did not have the same ownership interest in each unit. The SJPPA that governs the operation of SJGS expires on July 1, 2015, PNM entered into an agreement for2022. In connection with requirements to install SNCR and BDT equipment at SJGS, the supply of coalCalifornia participants indicated that, under California law, they might be prohibited from making significant capital improvements to SJGS through June 30, 2022.and expressed the intent to exit their ownership in SJGS by December 31, 2017. One other participant also expressed a similar intent to exit ownership in the plant. As a result, the SJGS participants negotiated a restructuring of the ownership in SJGS and addressed the obligations of the exiting participants for plant decommissioning, mine reclamation, environmental matters, and certain future operating costs, among other items. Prior to the restructuring, the exiting participants owned 50.0% of SJGS Unit 3 and 38.8% of SJGS Unit 4, but none of SJGS Units 1 and 2, and PNM owned 50.0% of SJGS Units 1, 2, and 3 and 38.5% of SJGS Unit 4.

In September 2014,Following mediated negotiations, the SJGS participants executed a binding Fuel and Capital Funding Agreement to implement certain provisions of the June 2014 arrangements, including payment by the remaining participants of capital costs for the Unit 4 SNCR project starting July 1, 2014. On January 7, 2015, Farmington, which has an ownership interest in SJGS Unit 4, notified the other participants that it would not acquire the additional MWs in Unit 4 contemplated in the June 2014 agreement, leaving 65 MWs in that unit unsubscribed. Farmington’s action resulted in the termination of the Fuel and Capital Funding Agreement.

On May 19, 2015, PNMR, PNM, PNMR Development, and the California owners of SJGS Unit 4 entered into the Capacity Option and Funding Agreement (“COFA”) that provided PNM and PNMR Development options to acquire 132 MW and 65 MW of the Unit 4 capacity currently owned by the California entities in exchange for PNM and PNMR Development funding the capital improvements related to Unit 4 effective as of January 1, 2015. The COFA terminated as of the effective date of the SJGS restructuring agreement, which occurred on January 31, 2016 as discussed below.

As indicated under NMPRC Filing above, PNM filed the executed San Juan Project Restructuring Agreement (“SJGS RA”) with the NMPRC on July 31, 2015. The SJGS RA sets forthprovides the agreement amongessential terms of restructured ownership and addresses other related matters, including that the SJGS owners regarding ownership restructuringexiting participants remain obligated for their proportionate shares of environmental, mine reclamation, and contains many of the provisions of the June 2014 arrangements.certain other legacy liabilities that are attributable to activities that occurred prior to their exit. PNMR Development became a party to the SJGS RA and willagreed to acquire an ownership interest in SJGS Unit 4 whenon the California owners exit, which is anticipated to be December 31, 2017 exit date, but hashad obligations related to Unit 4 before then. OnUnder the exit date,SJGS RA, PNM would acquire 132 MW and PNMR Development would acquire 132 MW and 65 MW of the capacity in SJGS Unit 4 from the Californiaexiting owners as contemplated byon the COFA. As discussed underexit date for no initial cost other than funding capital improvements, including the costs of installing SNCR and BDT equipment. PNMR Development’s share of the costs of installing SNCR and BDT equipment amounted to $7.6 million. Consistent with the NMPRC Filing above, the Stipulated Settlement would alloworder, PNM to acquire the 65 MW, which the RA contemplates will be acquired by PNMR Development. PNMR currently anticipates that PNMR Development would transfer the rights and obligations related to the 65 MW to PNM prior tofrom PNMR Development effective on December 31, 2017 in order to facilitate dispatch of power from that capacity.

The SJGS RA became effective contemporaneously with the effectiveness of the new SJGS CSA. The effectiveness of the new SJGS CSA was dependent on the closing of the purchase of the existing coal mine operation by a new mine operator, which as discussed in Coal Supply below, occurred at 11:59 PM on January 31, 2016. The SJGS RA sets forth the terms under which PNM will acquireacquired the coal inventory of the exiting SJGS participants as of January 1, 2016 and will supplysupplied coal to the exiting participants for

B - 90

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017, which arrangement PNM believes will provideprovided economic benefits that will bewere passed on to PNM’s customers through the FPPAC. The SJGS RA also includesincluded provisions whereby the exiting owners will makemade payments to certain of the remaining participants, not including PNM, related to the restructuring. PNMR Development’s share of the restructuring fee was recorded at December 31, 2015 and the $3.1 million impact is included in other income on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings.

On September 25, 2015, PNM made an application at FERC seeking certain approvals necessary for implementation of the restructured SJGS participation agreements. FERC approved the application on December 30, 2015.

SJGS Units 2 and 3 were shut down in December 2017 and the restructuring of SJGS ownership under the SJGS RA occurred on December 31, 2017, including PNM’s acquisition of the additional 132 MW and 65 MW ownership interests in SJGS Unit 4 as set forth above. In accordance with the FERC chart of accounts, plant in service for utility assets acquired is to be recorded at the original cost of the assets less accumulated depreciation. Since PNM did not pay for any costs incurred prior to the effective date of the SJGS RA, PNM increased both plant in service and accumulated depreciation for the original cost of the acquired interests at that date, estimated to be $261.8 million, on December 31, 2017. As ordered by the NMPRC, PNM will treat the 65 MW interest as merchant utility plant that will be excluded from retail rates. In anticipation of the transfer of ownership, PNM entered into agreements to sell the power from 36 MW of that capacity to a third party at a fixed price for the period January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2022 (Note 8). Beginning in 2018, SJGS is jointly owned by five entities. Including the 65 MW considered to be merchant plant, PNM’s ownership share is 77.3% in SJGS Unit 4 and an aggregate of 66.3% in SJGS Units 1 and 4.

Other SJGS Matters – The SJPPA requires PNM, as operating agent, to obtain approval of capital improvement project expenditures from participants who have an ownership interest in the relevant unit or property common to more than one unit. As provided inThe SJPPA also obligates PNM to take reasonable and prudent actions necessary for the SJPPA, specified percentagessuccessful and proper operation of bothSJGS if the outstanding participant shares, based on MW ownership, andparticipants fail to approve the number of participants in the unit or common property must be obtained in order for a capital improvement project to be approved.requested expenditures. PNM presented the SNCR project, including BDT equipment, to the SJGS participants in Unit 1 and Unit 4 for approval in October 2013. The project was approved for Unit 1, but the Unit 4 project, which includesincluded some of the California participants, didwas not obtain the required percentage of votes for approval.approved. PNM subsequently submitted several requests to the owners of Unit 4 requestingfor approval of certain expenditures critical to comply with the time frame in the RSIP, as well as requests to approve the total forecasted project expenses. The required majority of Unit 4 owners did not approve these requests.

PNM, in its capacity as operating agent, of SJGS, is authorized and obligated under the SJPPA to take reasonable and prudent actions necessary for the successful and proper operation of SJGS pending the resolution, by arbitration or otherwise, of any inability or failure to agree by the participants. PNM must evaluate its responsibilities and obligations as operating agent under the SJPPA regarding the SJGS Unit 4 capital projects that were not approved by the participants and take reasonable and prudent actions as it deems necessary. Therefore, PNM, as operating agent for SJGS,subsequently issued several “Prudent Utility Practice” notices under the SJPPA indicating PNM was undertaking certain critical activities to comply with regulatory requirements and keep the Unit 4 SNCR project on schedule.

B- 92

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013


Although the SJGS RA results in an agreement among the SJGS participants enabling compliance with current CAA requirements, it is possible that the financial impact of climate change regulation or legislation, other environmental regulations, the result of litigation, and other business considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of SJGS or the ability or willingness of individual participants to continue participation in the plant. PNM’s 2017 IRP (Note 17) filed with the NMPRC on July 3, 2017 presented resource portfolio plans for scenarios that assumed SJGS will operate beyond the end of the current coal supply agreement that runs through June 30, 2022 and for scenarios that assumed SJGS will cease operations after mid-2022. The 2017 IRP data shows that retiring SJGS in 2022 would provide long-term cost benefits to PNM’s customers.

Four Corners

On August 6, 2012, EPA issued its Four Corners FIP with a final BART determination for Four Corners. The rule included two compliance alternatives. On December 30, 2013, APS notified EPA that the Four Corners participants selected the alternative that required APS to permanently close Units 1-31, 2, and 3 by January 1, 2014 and install SCR post-combustion NOx controls on each of Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018. PNM owns a 13% interest in Units 4 and 5, but had no ownership interest in Units 1, 2, and 3, which were shut down by APS on December 30, 2013. For particulate matter emissions, EPA is requiring Units 4 and 5 to meet an emission limit of 0.015 lb/lbs/MMBTU and the plant to meet a 20% opacity limit, both of which are achievable through operation of the existing baghouses. Although unrelated to BART, the final BART rule also imposes a 20% opacity limitation on certain fugitive dust emissions from Four Corners’ coal and material handling operations.
SCE, a participant inPNM estimates its share of costs for post-combustion controls at Four Corners indicated that certain California legislation may prohibit it from making emission control expenditures at Four Corners. APS and SCE entered into an asset purchase agreement, providing for the purchase by APS of SCE’s 48% interest in each of Units 4 and 5 to be up to $88.9 million, including amounts incurred through December 31, 2017 and PNM’s AFUDC. See Note 17 for information on the NMPRC’s treatment of Four Corners. A principal condition to closing was the executionthese costs in PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case.

B - 91

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

The Four Corners on terms reasonably acceptable to APS. See Coal Supply below.
On December 30, 2013, APS announced the closing of its purchase of SCE’s 48% interest in each of Units 4 and 5 of Four Corners. Concurrently with the closing of the SCE transaction, the ownership of the coal supplier and operator of the mine that serves Four Corners was transferred to a company formed byplant site is leased from the Navajo Nation to own the mine and develop other energy projects. Also occurring concurrently, the Four Corners co-owners executed a long-term agreement for the supply of coal to Four Corners from July 2016, when the current coal supply agreement expires, through July 2031.
Nation. APS, on behalf of the Four Corners participants, negotiated amendments to anthe existing facility lease with the Navajo Nation, which extends the Four Corners leasehold interest from 2016 to 2041.  The Navajo Nation approved these amendments in March 2011.  The effectiveness of the amendments also required the approval of the DOI as didissued a related federal rights-of-way grant that culminated in the issuance of a DOI Record of Decision on July 17, 2015. The Record of Decision approves2015 approving the 25-year site lease extension with the Navajo Nation for Four Corners, authorizes continued mining operations to supply the remaining units at Four Corners, renews transmission line and access road rights-of-way on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations, and accepts the proposed mining plan for the Navajo Mine.  The Record of Decision provides the authority for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to sign the lease amendments and rights-of-way renewals, which occurred in July 2015. In addition, installation of SCR control technology at Four Corners required a PSD permit, which APS received in December 2014. 

On December 21, 2015, a coalition of environmental groups filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the OSM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other federal agencies alleging that OSM’s reliance on the Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement prepared in connection with the environmental review described above were not in accordance with applicable law. The notice cites violations of the ESA and alleges that certain decisions by the agencies were arbitrary and capricious and not in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act. The notice states that, if action is not taken within 60 days to remedy the alleged violations, the environmental groups will file a citizens’ suit over the claims. PNM is monitoring this matter but cannot predict the timing or outcome.

The Four Corners participants’ obligations to comply with EPA’s final BART determinations, coupled with the financial impact of climate change regulation or legislation, other environmental regulations, and other business or regulatory considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of Four Corners or the ability of individual participants to continue their participation in Four Corners.

PNM is continuingFour Corners Federal Agency Lawsuit – On April 20, 2016, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit against OSM and other federal agencies in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in connection with their issuance of the approvals that extended the life of Four Corners and the adjacent mine.  The lawsuit alleges that these federal agencies violated both the ESA and NEPA in providing the federal approvals necessary to evaluate the impacts of EPA’s BART determination for Four Corners. PNM estimates its share of costs to be up to $94.0 million, including amounts incurred through December 31, 2015 and PNM’s AFUDC, for post-combustion controlsextend operations at Four Corners Units 4 and 5.the adjacent mine past July 6, 2016.  The court granted an APS motion to intervene in the litigation on August 3, 2016. On September 15, 2016, NTEC, the current owner of the mine providing coal to Four Corners, filed a motion to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking dismissal of the lawsuit based on NTEC’s tribal sovereign immunity. On September 11, 2017, the court granted NTEC’s motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, terminating the proceedings. The environmental group plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissed order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 9, 2017. PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all costs that are ultimately incurred. PNMcannot predict if such appeal will be successful and, if it is unable to predictsuccessful, the ultimate outcome of this matter.further district court proceedings.
 

B- 93

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

Carbon Dioxide Emissions
On August 3, 2015, EPA established final standards to limit CO2 emissions from power plants. EPA took three separate but related actions in which it: (1) established the final carbon pollution standards for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants; (2) established the final Clean Power Plan to set standards for carbon emission reductions from existing power plants; and (3) released a proposed federal plan associated with the final Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan was published on October 23, 2015.

Multiple states, utilities, and trade groups subsequently filed petitions for review and motions to stay in the D.C. Circuit.

TheDC Circuit to challenge both the Carbon Pollution Standards for new sources and the Clean Power Plan establishes state-by-state targets for carbon emissions reduction and requires states to submit initial plans to EPA by September 6, 2016. EPA may grant up to a two-year extension provided that the initial plan meets certain specified criteria for progress and consultation. States receiving an extension must submit an update to EPA in 2017. All final state plans must be submitted to EPA by 2018. State plans can be based on either an emission standards (rate or mass) approach or a state measures approach. Under an emission standards approach, federally enforceable emission limits are placed directly on affected units in the state. A state measures approach must meet equivalent rates statewide but may include some elements, such as renewable energy or energy efficiency requirements, that are not federally enforceable. State measures plans may only be used with mass-based goals and must include “backstop” federally enforceable standards that will become effective if the state measures fail to achieve the expected level of emission reductions.

On January 26, 2016, 29 states and state agenciesexisting sources. Numerous parties also simultaneously filed a petition to the USSC asking the court to reverse the D.C. Circuit’s decision and stay the implementation of the Clean Power Plan. On February 9, 2016, the USSC granted the applicationsmotions to stay the Clean Power Plan pending judicial review ofduring the rule.  The USSC issuedlitigation. On January 21, 2016, the DC Circuit denied petitions to stay the Clean Power Plan, but 29 states and state agencies successfully petitioned the US Supreme Court for a one-page order that stated, “The EPA rule to have states cut power sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 32% by 2030 is stayed pending disposition of the applicants’ petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” The votestay, which was 5-4 among the USSC Justices.granted on February 9, 2016. The decision means the Clean Power Plan is not in effect and neither states nor sources are not obliged to comply with its requirements. IfWith the rule prevails throughUS Supreme Court stay in place, the legal challenges, states will be able to resume preparing state plans where they left off and should still have six more months to prepare initial plans and two-and- a-half years for final plans. The D.C.DC Circuit will hearheard oral arguments on the merits of the states’Clean Power Plan on September 27, 2016 in front of a ten judge en banc panel. However, before the DC Circuit could issue an opinion, the Trump Administration asked that the case be held in abeyance while the rule is re-evaluated, which was granted.

On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order on June 2, 2016. AEnergy Independence. The order puts forth two general policies: promote clean and safe development of energy resources, while avoiding regulatory burdens, and ensure electricity is affordable, reliable, safe, secure, and clean.  The order directs the EPA Administrator to immediately review and, if appropriate and consistent with law, suspend, revise, or rescind (1) the Clean Power Plan, (2) the New Source Performance Standards for GHG from new, reconstructed, or modified electric generating units, (3) the Proposed Clean Power Plan Model Trading Rules, and (4) the Legal Memorandum supporting the Clean Power Plan. It also directs the EPA Administrator to notify the US Attorney General of his intent to review rules subject to pending litigation so that the US Attorney General may notify the court and, in his discretion, request that the court delay further litigation pending completion of the reviews. In response to the Executive Order, EPA filed a petition with the DC Circuit requesting the cases challenging the Clean Power Plan be held in abeyance until 30 days after the conclusion of EPA’s review and any subsequent rulemaking, which was granted. In addition, the DC Circuit issued a similar order in connection with a motion filed by EPA to hold cases challenging the NSPS in abeyance.

On October 10, 2017, EPA issued a NOPR proposing to repeal the Clean Power Plan and filed its status report with the court requesting the case be held in abeyance until the completion of the rulemaking on the proposed repeal. The NOPR proposes a legal interpretation concluding that the Clean Power Plan exceeds EPA’s statutory authority. Under the proposed interpretation,

B - 92

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

Section 111(d) limits EPA’s authority to adopt performance standards to only those physical and operational changes that can be implemented within an individual source. Therefore, measures in the Clean Power Plan that would require power generators to change their energy portfolios by shifting generation from coal to gas and from fossil fuel to renewable energy exceed EPA’s statutory authority. The NOPR was published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2017, starting a 60-day public comment period and the EPA has indicated that it will continue to accept comments until April 26, 2018. Any final ruling fromrule will be subject to judicial review. In a separate but related action, on December 28, 2017, EPA published the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for replacement of the Clean Power Plan. EPA indicated it has not determined whether it will promulgate a new rule under section 111(d) or what form a new rule would take, but is seeking public comment on that court might not come for months. The stay will remain in effect pending USSC review if such review is sought.question.

The proposed federal plan released concurrently with the Clean Power Plan is important to Four Corners and the Navajo Nation. Since the Navajo Nation does not have primacy over its air quality program, the EPA would be the regulatory authority responsible for implementing the Clean Power Plan on the Navajo Nation.Nation if the Clean Power Plan is ultimately sustained. In addition, the proposed rule recommendsrecommended that EPA determine it is “necessary or appropriate” for EPA to regulate CO2 emissions on the Navajo Nation. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on January 21, 2016. APS and PNM filed separate comments with EPA on EPA’s draft plan and model trading rules, advocating that such a federal plan is neither necessary nor appropriate to protect air quality on the Navajo Nation. If EPA was to determine that it was “not necessary or appropriate”, then the Clean Power Plan would not apply to the Navajo Nation, in which case, APS has indicated the Clean Power Plan would not have a material impact on Four Corners.  PNM is unable to predict the financial or operational impacts on Four Corners operations if the Clean Power Plan is ultimately implemented as proposed and EPA determines that a federal plan is necessary or appropriate for the Navajo Nation.

PNM’s review of the new CO2 emission reductions standards under the Clean Power Plan is ongoing and the assessment of its impacts will depend on the outcomeproposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, future GHG reduction rulemaking, litigation of any final rule, and other actions the Trump Administration is taking through judicial and regulatory proceedings. Accordingly, PNM cannot predict the impact these standards may have on its operations or a range of the potential costs of compliance.compliance, if any.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”)

The CAA requires EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. EPA has set NAAQS for certain pollutants, including NOx, SO2, ozone, and particulate matter. In 2010, EPA updated the primary NOx and SO2 NAAQS to include a 1-hour maximum standard while retaining the annual standards for NOx and SO2 and the 24-hour SO2 standard. New Mexico is in attainment for the 1-hour NOx NAAQS. On May 13, 2014, EPA released the draft data requirements rule for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which directs state and tribal air agencies to characterize current air quality in areas with large SO2 sources to identify maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations. The proposed rule also describes the process and timetable by which air regulatory agencies would characterize air quality around large SO2 sources through ambient monitoring or modeling. This characterization will result in these areas being designated as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for compliance with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. On March 2, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a settlement that imposes deadlines for EPA to identify areas that violate the NAAQS standards for 1-hour SO2 emissions. The

B- 94

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

settlement results from a lawsuit brought by Earthjustice on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council under the CAA. The consent decree requires the following: 1)(1) within 16 months of the consent decree entry, EPA must issue area designations for areas containing non-retiring facilities that either emitted more than 16,000 tons of SO2 in 2012 or emitted more than 2,600 tons with an emission rate of 0.45 lbs/MMBTU or higher in 2012; 2)(2) by December 2017, EPA must issue designations for areas for which states have not adopted a new monitoring network under the proposed data requirements rule; and (3) by December 2020, EPA must issue designations for areas for which states have adopted a new monitoring network under the proposed data requirements rule.  SJGS and Four Corners SO2 emissions are below the tonnagesthresholds set forth in 1)(1) above. EPA regions sent letters to state environmental agencies explaining how EPA plans to implement the consent decree.  The letters outline the schedule that EPA expects states to follow in moving forward with new SO2 non-attainment designations. NMED did not receive a letter.

On August 11, 2015, EPA released the Data Requirements Rule for SO2, telling states how to model or monitor to determine attainment or nonattainment with the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.  IfOn June 3, 2016, NMED choosesnotified PNM that air quality modeling results indicated that SJGS was in compliance with the standard. In January 2017, NMED submitted their formal modeling approachreport regarding attainment status to EPA. The modeling indicated that EPA encourages states to adopt,no area in New Mexico exceeds the 1-hour SO2 standard. In July of each year, NMED mustwill submit a modeling protocol for SJGSan annual report to EPA by July 1, 2016. NMED must then submit modeling results fordocumenting annual SO2 emissions from SJGS to EPA by January 13, 2017. However, if NMED choosesand the monitoring approach, a more relaxed schedule would apply.  If SJGS can accept a federally enforceable 2,000 tons per year source-wide limit before January 13,associated compliance status.


B - 93

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, modeling would not be required by EPA. PNM is currently evaluating the rule to understand its impacts.2016 and 2015

On May 14, 2015, PNM received an amendment to its NSR air permit for SJGS, which reflects the revised state implementation plan for regional haze BART and requires the installation of SNCRs as described above. The revised permit also requires the reduction of SO2 emissions to 0.10 pound per MMBTU on SJGS Units 1 and 4 and the installation of BDT equipment modifications for the purpose of reducing fugitive emissions, including NOx, SO2, and particulate matter. These reductions willshould help SJGS meet the NAAQS.NAAQS for these constituents. The BDT equipment modifications were installed at the same time as the SNCRs, in order to most efficiently and cost effectively conduct construction activities at SJGS. See Regional Haze – SJGS above.

EPA finalized revisions to its NAAQS for fine particulate matter on December 14, 2012. PNM believes the equipment modifications discussed above will assist the plant in complying with the particulate matter NAAQS.
In January 2010, EPA announced it would strengthen the 8-hour ozone standard by setting a new standard in a range of 60-70 parts per billion (“ppb”). On October 1, 2015, EPA finalized the new ozone NAAQS and lowered both the primary and secondary 8-hour standard from 75 ppbparts per billion (“ppb”) to 70 ppb. With ozone standards becoming more stringent, fossil-fueled generation units will come under increasing pressure to reduce emissions of NOx and volatile organic compounds, and to generate emission offsets for new projects or facility expansions located in nonattainment areas. EPA plans to propose rules and guidance over the next year to help states with potential nonattainment areas implement the revised standards.

On November 10, 2015, EPA proposed a rule revising its Exceptional Events Rule, which outlines the requirements for excluding air quality data (including ozone data) from regulatory decisions if the data areis affected by events outside an area’s control. The proposed rule is timely in light of the new more stringent ozone NAAQS final rule since western states like NMNew Mexico and AZArizona are particularly subject to elevated background ozone transport from natural local sources such as wildfires, and transported via winds from distant sources, such as the stratosphere or another region or country.

As requiredOn February 25, 2016, EPA released guidance on area designations, which states used to determine their initial designation recommendations by October 1, 2016. EPA recommended that states and tribes use the CAA,three most recent years of quality assured monitoring data available (e.g., 2013 to 2015) to recommend designations. In their submittals, states and tribes were also able to use preliminary 2016 data. EPA anticipates makingwas expected to release final designations of attainment/nonattainment for areas by October 1, 2017. On June 6, 2017, the EPA Administrator sent letters to state governors announcing that EPA was extending, by one year, the deadline for promulgating area designations. However, on August 2, 2017, the Trump Administration reversed the decision to extend the deadline to issue area designations, thereby requiring EPA to issue designations for the revised standardsozone attainment areas by lateOctober 1, 2017. Those designations likely will be based

NMED published its 2015 Ozone NAAQS Designation Recommendation Report on 2014-2016 air quality data. Counties that exceed the ozone NAAQS would be designatedSeptember 2, 2016. In New Mexico, NMED is designating only a small area in southern Dona Ana County as nonattainmentnon-attainment for ozone. NMED wouldwill have responsibility for bringing nonattainment countiesthis non-attainment area into compliance and wouldwill look at all sources of NOx NOx and volatile organic compounds since these are the pollutants that form ground-level ozone. According to NMED’s website, “If emissions from Mexico keep New Mexico from meeting the standards, the New Mexico area could remain non-attainment but would not face more stringent requirements over time.”

ShouldOn November 6, 2017, EPA released a final rule establishing some, but not all, initial area designations.  In that final rule, EPA designated 2,646 counties (representing about 85% of the counties in the U.S.) as attainment/unclassifiable, and three counties in Washington as unclassifiable.  San Juan County, become non-attainmentNew Mexico, where SJGS and Four Corners are located, is designated as attainment/unclassifiable. On December 21, 2017, EPA issued a notice of availability of its intended designations for ozone, SJGS could bethe remaining undesignated areas. EPA stated that it intended to address the remaining areas in a separate future action, but did not specify a time frame for doing so.  Under the CAA, EPA was required to install further controlspromulgate area designations no later than October 1, 2017. The notice announces the availability of “120-day letters,” which were sent directly to meetstates and tribes on December 20, 2017, and contain EPA’s intended air quality designations for the newremaining areas. The only county in New Mexico designated as non-attainment is Dona Ana County.  By February 28, 2018, states and tribes must provide EPA any additional information they would like EPA to consider before it promulgates final designations.  EPA stated it intends to finalize designations for all areas addressed in the 120-day letters no later than April 30, 2018.

By October 2018, NMED is required to submit an infrastructure SIP that provides the basic air quality management program to implement the revised ozone NAAQS.standard. These plans are generally due within 36 months from the date of designation and are expected to be submitted to EPA by October 1, 2020.

PNM does not believe there will be material impacts to its facilities as a result of NMED’s nonattainment designation of the small area within Dona Ana County. Until EPA approves attainment designations for the Navajo Nation and releases a proposal to implement the revised ozone NAAQS, APS is unable to predict what impact the adoption of these standards may have on Four Corners. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter, the impact of other potential environmental mitigations, or if additional controls would be required at any of its affected facilities as a result of ozone non-attainment designation.matter.
Citizen Suit Under the Clean Air Act
The operations of SJGS are covered by a Consent Decree with the Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club and with the NMED that includes stipulated penalties for non-compliance with specified emissions limits. In May 2011, PNM entered into an

B- 95B - 94

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

agreement with NMED and the plaintiffs to resolve a dispute over the applicable NOx emission limits under the Consent Decree. Under the agreement, so long as the NOx emissions limits imposed under the EPA FIP and the New Mexico SIP meet a specified emissions limit, and PNM does not challenge these limits, the parties’ dispute is deemed settled.

In May 2010, PNM filed a petition with the federal district court seeking a judicial determination on a dispute relating to PNM’s mercury controls. NMED and plaintiffs sought to require PNM to implement additional mercury controls. PNM estimated the implementation would increase annual mercury control costs for the entire station from $0.7 million to $6.6 million. Under a stipulated order, PNM was required to repeat a mercury study that would establish the activated carbon injection rate that maximizes mercury removal at SJGS, as required under the Consent Decree. PNM submitted the study report to NMED and the plaintiffs in December 2014. Based on PNM’s cost/benefit analysis, PNM recommended that the carbon injection not be increased from its current level. On March 18, 2015, NMED and the plaintiffs approved PNM’s recommendation for the activated carbon injection rate. The NSR permit issued by NMED on May 14, 2015 incorporates this operational parameter as a permit condition.

Four Corners Clean Air Act Lawsuit
In October 2011, Earthjustice, on behalf of several environmental organizations, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico against APS and the other Four Corners participants alleging violations of the NSR provisions of the CAA and NSPS violations. The parties agreed on terms of a settlement.  On June 24, 2015, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) lodged the executed consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico and published notice of the filing in the Federal Register. On August 17, 2015, the consent decree was entered by the court, marking resolution to the litigation. The settlement resolves claims by the government and environmental plaintiffs that the co-owners violated the CAA by modifying Four Corners Units 4 and 5 without first obtaining a pre-construction permit from EPA. The settlement requires installation of pollution control technology and implementation of other measures to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions from the two units, although installation of much of this equipment was already planned in order to comply with EPA’s Regional Haze Rule BART requirements. The settlement also requires Four Corners co-owners to pay a civil penalty of $1.5 million and spend $6.7 million for certain environmental mitigation projects to benefit the Navajo Nation. PNM is responsible for 13% of these costs based on its ownership interest in the units at the time of the alleged violations, which PNM recorded in 2014.

Four Corners Coal Mine

In 2012, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the OSM challenging OSM’s 2012 approval of a permit revision which allowed for the expansion of mining operations into a new area of the mine that serves Four Corners (“Area IV North”). In April 2015, the court issued an order invalidating the permit revision, thereby prohibiting mining in Area IV North until OSM takes action to cure the defect in its permitting process identified by the court. APS has indicated that the owner of the mine does not anticipate any near-term interruption of coal supply to the plant as a result of the suspension of mining in Area IV North. The owner of the mine appealed the court’s decision to the Tenth Circuit, where it remains pending. On December 28, 2015, OSM took action to cure the defect in its permitting process by issuing a revised environmental assessment and finding of no new significant impact, and reissued the permit. This action is subject to possible judicial review and PNM cannot predict the outcome.

WEG v. OSM NEPA Lawsuit

In February 2013, WEG filed a Petition for Review in the United States District Court of Colorado against 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 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 OSM administrative actions in 2008.  WEG alleges various NEPA violations against OSM, including, but not limited to, 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 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 NEPA has been demonstrated; and enjoining operations at the seven mines.

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 OSM administrative actions in 2008. SJCC intervened in this matter. The court granted SJCC’s motion to sever its claims from the lawsuit and transfer venue to the United States District Court

B- 96

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

for the District of New Mexico. Legal briefingIn July 2016, OSM filed a Motion for Voluntary Remand to allow the agency to conduct a new environmental analysis. On August 31, 2016, the court entered an order remanding the matter to OSM for the completion of an EIS by August 31, 2019. The court ruled that mining operations may continue in the interim and the litigation is complete. A stayadministratively closed. If OSM does not complete the EIS within the time frame provided, the court will order immediate vacatur of the mining plan at issue, absent a further court order based on good cause shown.  On March 22, 2017, OSM issued its Notice of Intent to initiate the public scoping process and prepare an EIS for the project. The Notice of Intent provided that, in this matter has been extended through April 1, 2016 whileaddition to analyzing the parties continue to engage in settlement negotiations. If WEG ultimately obtainsenvironmental effects of the relief it has requested, such a ruling could require significant expenditures to reconfigure operations atmining project, the San Juan mine, impactEIS will also analyze the productionindirect effects of coal combustion at SJGS. The public comment period ended on May 8, 2017 and impact the economic viability of the San Juan mine and SJGS.EIS resource data submittal phase was completed in November 2017. The draft EIS is expected to be available for public comment in mid-2018. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter or the range of its potential impact.matter.
Navajo Nation Environmental Issues
Four Corners is located on the Navajo Reservation and is held under an easement granted by the federal government, as well as a lease from the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Acts purport to give the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency authority to promulgate regulations covering air quality, drinking water, and pesticide activities, including those activities that occur at Four Corners. In October 1995, the Four Corners participants filed a lawsuit in the District Court of the Navajo Nation challenging the applicability of the Navajo Acts to Four Corners. In May 2005, APS and the Navajo Nation signed an agreement resolving the dispute regarding the Navajo Nation’s authority to adopt operating permit regulations under the Navajo Nation Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act. As a result of this agreement, APS sought, and the courtscourt granted, dismissal of the pending litigation in the Navajo Nation Supreme Court and the Navajo Nation District Court, to the extent the claims relate to the CAA. The agreement does not address or resolve any dispute relating to other aspects of the Navajo Acts. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of these matters or the range of their potential impacts.
Cooling Water Intake Structures
EPA signed its final cooling water intake structures rule on May 16, 2014, which establishes national standards for certain cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and other facilities under the Clean Water Act to protect fish and other aquatic organisms by minimizing impingement mortality (the capture of aquatic wildlife on intake structures or against screens) and entrainment mortality (the capture of fish or shellfish in water flow entering and passing through intake structures). The final rule was published on August 15, 2014 and became effective October 14, 2014.
The final rule allows multiple compliance options and considerations for site specific conditions and the permit writer is granted a significant amount of discretion in determining permit requirements, schedules, and conditions. To minimize impingement mortality, the rule provides operators of facilities, such as SJGS and Four Corners, seven options for meeting Best Technology Available (“BTA”) standards for reducing impingement. SJGS has a closed-cycle recirculating cooling system, which is a listed BTA and may also qualify for the “dede minimis rate of impingement” based on the design of the intake structure. To minimize entrainment mortality, the permitting authority must establish the BTA for entrainment on a site-specific basis, taking into consideration an array of factors, including endangered species and social costs and benefits. Affected sources must submit source water baseline characterization data to the permitting authority to assist in the determination. Compliance deadlines under the rule are tied to permit renewal and will be subject to a schedule of compliance established by the permitting authority.
On August 27,
B - 95

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 PNM submitted

The rule is not clear as to how it applies and what the compliance timelines are for facilities like SJGS that have a request to EPA to terminate the SJGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit.  Although SJGS has been a zero discharge facility for several years, EPA had required the plant to maintain a NPDES permit. On September 22, 2015, EPA issued a letter approving the termination request. The cooling water intake structure rule still applies to SJGS as the plant operates under theand only a multi-sector general stormwater permit. PNM is working with EPA NPDES Multi-Sector General Stormwater Permit (“MSGP”). On June 4, 2015, the EPA reissued and revised the MSGP.regarding this issue. However, PNM does not expect material changes as a result of any requirements that may be imposed upon SJGSSJGS. The requirements related to cooling water intake structures.
APS is currently in discussions with EPA Region 9, the NPDES permit writer for Four Corners to determine the scope of the impingement and entrainment requirements, which will be addressed in turn,a subsequent NPDES permitting cycle that will determine APS’s costs to comply with the rule. APS has indicated that itPNM does not expect such costs to be material.

Effluent Limitation Guidelines

On June 7, 2013, EPA published proposed revised wastewater effluent limitation guidelines establishing technology-based wastewater discharge limitations for fossil fuel-fired electric power plants.  EPA’s proposal offered numerous options that target metals and other pollutants in wastewater streams originating from fly ash and bottom ash handling activities, scrubber activities, and non-chemical metal cleaning waste operations.  All proposed alternatives establish a “zero discharge” effluent limit for all pollutants in fly ash transport water. Requirements governing bottom ash transport water differ depending on which alternative

B- 97

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

EPA ultimately chooses and could range from effluent limits based on Best Available Technology Economically Achievable to “zero discharge” effluent limits.

EPA signed the final Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Rulerule on September 30, 2015 and released the pre-publication copy.2015. The final rule, which became effective on January 4, 2016, phases in the new, more stringent requirements in the form of effluent limits for arsenic, mercury, selenium, and nitrogen for wastewater discharged from wet scrubber systems and zero discharge of pollutants in ash transport water that must be incorporated into plants’ NPDES permits. Each plant must comply between 2018 and 2023 depending on when it needs a new/revised NPDES permit.

On April 14, 2017, EPA filed a motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relating to ongoing litigation of the 2016 Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines rule. EPA asked the court to hold all proceedings in the case in abeyance until August 12, 2017 while EPA reconsiders the rule. EPA also asked to be allowed to file a motion on August 12, 2017 to inform the court if EPA wishes to seek a remand of any provisions of the rule so that EPA may conduct further rulemaking, if appropriate. The motion referred to the notice signed by the EPA Administrator on April 12, 2017, which announced EPA’s intent to reconsider this rule, as well as EPA’s administrative stay of the compliance deadlines. On August 22, 2017, the court granted the government’s motion and the litigation is held in abeyance until EPA’s further rulemaking has concluded.

On April 25, 2017, EPA published in the Federal Register a notice of postponement of certain compliance dates for the 2016 Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines rule, consistent with the EPA's decision to grant reconsideration of the rule. Specifically, the deadlines that will be postponed are the "best available technology" limitations and pretreatment standards for certain waste streams.

On September 18, 2017, EPA published the final rule for postponement of certain compliance dates that have not yet passed for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines rule, consistent with the EPA's decision to grant reconsideration of that rule. The final rule postponed the earliest date on which compliance with the effluent limitation guidelines for these waste streams would be required from November 1, 2018 until November 1, 2020.

Because SJGS is zero discharge for wastewater and no longer holds anis not required hold a NPDES permit, it is expected that minimal to no requirements will be imposed. Reeves Station, a PNM-owned gas-fired generating station, discharges cooling tower blowdown to a publicly owned treatment works and holds an NPDES permit. Applicability of the rule will need to be assessed. It is expected that minimumminimal to no requirements will be imposed at Reeves.Reeves

Based upon the requirements of the final Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Rule, Four Corners may be required to change equipment and operating practices affecting boilers and ash handling systems, as well as change its waste disposal techniques. Until a draft NPDES permit is proposed for Four Corners, APS is uncertain what will be required to comply with the finalizedrevised effluent limitations.limitations during the revised compliance timeframe (from November 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023).  PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or a range of the potential costs of compliance.
Santa Fe Generating Station
PNM and the NMED are parties to agreements under which PNM installed a remediation system to treat water from a City of Santa Fe municipal supply well, an extraction well, and monitoring wells to address gasoline contamination in the

B - 96

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

groundwater at the site of PNM’s former Santa Fe Generating Station and service center. PNM believes the observed groundwater contamination originated from off-site sources, but agreed to operate the remediation facilities until the groundwater meets applicable federal and state standards or until the NMED determines that additional remediation is not required, whichever is earlier. The City of Santa Fe has indicated that since the City no longer needs the water from the well, the City would prefer to discontinue its operation and maintain it only as a backup water source. However, for PNM’s groundwater remediation system to operate, the water well must be in service. Currently, PNM is not able to assess the duration of this project or estimate the impact on its obligations if the City of Santa Fe ceases to operate the water well.

Effective December 22, 2015, PNM and NMED entered into a memorandum of understanding to address changing groundwater quality conditions at the site. Under the memorandum, PNM will continue gasoline remediation of the site under the supervision of NMED and qualified costs of the work will be eligible for payment through the New Mexico Corrective Action Fund, which is administered by the NMED Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau. Among other things, money in the Corrective Action Fund is available to NMED to make payments to or on behalf of owners and operators for corrective action taken in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements to investigate, minimize, eliminate or clean up a release.
The Superfund Oversight Section of the NMED also has conducted multiple investigations into the chlorinated solvent plume in the vicinity of the site of the former Santa Fe Generating Station. In February 2008, a NMED site inspection report was submitted to EPA, which states that neither the source nor extent of contamination has been determined and that the source may not be the former Santa Fe Generating Station. Results of tests conducted by NMED in April 2012 and April 2013 showed elevated concentrations of nitrate in three monitoring wells and an increase in free-phase hydrocarbons in another well. None of these wells are routinely monitored as part of PNM’s obligations under the settlement agreement. PNM conducted similar site-wide sampling activities in April 2014 and obtained results similar to the 2013 data. As part of this effort, PNM also collected a sample of hydrocarbon product for “fingerprint” analysis from a monitoring well located on the northeastern corner of the property.  This analysis indicated that the hydrocarbon product was a mixture of newer and older fuels, and the location of the monitoring well suggests that the hydrocarbon product is likely from offsite sources. PNM does not believe the former generating station is the source of the increased levels of free-phase hydrocarbons, but no conclusive determinations have been made. ItHowever, it is possible that PNM’s prior activities to remediate hydrocarbon contamination, as conducted under an NMED-approved plan, may have resulted in increased nitrate levels.  Additional testing and analysis will needTherefore, PNM has agreed to be performed before conclusions can be reached regardingmonitor nitrate levels in a limited number of wells under the causeterms of the increased nitrate levelsrenewed discharge permit for the former generating station. 

Effective December 22, 2015, PNM and NMED entered into a memorandum of understanding to address changing groundwater quality conditions at the site. Under the memorandum, PNM will continue hydrocarbon investigation of the site under the supervision of NMED and qualified costs of the work will be eligible for payment through the New Mexico Corrective Action Fund (“CAF”), which is administered by the NMED Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau. Among other things, money in the CAF is available to NMED to make payments to or the methodon behalf of owners and operators for corrective action taken in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements to investigate, minimize, eliminate, or clean up a release. PNM’s work plan and cost estimates for specific groundwater investigation tasks were approved by the Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau. PNM submitted a monitoring plan consisting of remediation.  a compilation of the data associated with the recent monitoring activities conducted under the CAF to NMED on October 3, 2016. PNM has completed all CAF-related work associated with the monitoring plan and has received NMED’s approval. Under the next phase, PNM’s contractor prepared a scope of work, which PNM and NMED have approved, for the installation of additional monitoring wells and additional sampling of certain existing monitoring wells at the site. Work is expected to commence in March 2018. Qualified costs of this work will be eligible for payment through the CAF.

PNM is unable to predict the outcome of these matters.

B- 98

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

Coal Combustion Byproducts Waste Disposal
CCBs consisting of fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum from SJGS are currently disposed of in the surface mine pits adjacent to the plant. SJGS does not operate any CCB impoundments or landfills. The Mining and Minerals Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department currently regulates mine placement of ash with federal oversight by the OSM. APS disposes of CCBs in ash ponds and dry storage areas at Four Corners.  Ash management at Four Corners is regulated by EPA and the New Mexico State Engineer’s Office. 
In June 2010, EPA published a proposed rule that included two options for waste designation of coal ash. One option was to regulate CCBs as a hazardous waste, which would allow EPA to create a comprehensive federal program for waste management and disposal of CCBs. The other option was to regulate CCBs as a non-hazardous waste, which would provide EPA with the authority to develop performance standards for waste management facilities handling the CCBs and would be enforced primarily by state authorities or through citizen suits. Both options allow for continued use of CCBs in beneficial applications.

On December 19, 2014,August 6, 2012, EPA issued its coal ash rule, includingFour Corners FIP with a non-hazardous wastefinal BART determination for coal ash. Coal ash will be regulated as a solid waste under Subtitle D of RCRA.Four Corners. The rule sets minimum criteria for existingincluded two compliance alternatives. On December 30, 2013, APS notified EPA that the Four Corners participants selected the alternative that required APS to permanently close Units 1, 2, and new CCB landfills3 by January 1, 2014 and existinginstall SCR post-combustion NOx controls on each of Units 4 and new CCB surface impoundments5 by July 31, 2018. PNM owns a 13% interest in Units 4 and all lateral expansions consisting5, but had no ownership interest in Units 1, 2, and 3, which were shut down by APS on December 30, 2013. For particulate matter emissions, EPA is requiring Units 4 and 5 to meet an emission limit of location restrictions, design0.015 lbs/MMBTU and operating criteria; groundwater monitoring and corrective action; closure requirements and post closure care; and recordkeeping, notification, and internet posting requirements. Because the rule is promulgated under Subtitle D, it does not require regulated facilities to obtain permits, does not require the states to adopt and implement the new rules, and is not within EPA’s enforcement jurisdiction. Instead, the rule’s compliance mechanism is for a state or citizen group to bring a RCRA citizen suit in federal district court against any facility that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the new requirements. EPA published the final CCB rule in the Federal Register on April 17, 2015, with an effective date of October 19, 2015. Based upon the requirements of the final rule, PNM conducted a CCB assessment at SJGS and made minor modifications at the plant to ensure that theremeet a 20% opacity limit, both of which are no facilities which would be considered impoundments or landfills underachievable through operation of the rule. PNM does not expect itexisting baghouses. Although unrelated to haveBART, the final BART rule also imposes a material impact20% opacity limitation on operations, financial position, or cash flows.

The rule’s preamble indicates EPA is still evaluating whether to reverse its original regulatory determination and regulate coal ash under RCRA Subtitle C, which means it is possible at some point in the future for EPA to review the new CCB rules. The CCB rule does not cover mine placement of coal ash. OSM is expected to publish a proposed rule covering mine placement in 2016 and will likely be influenced by EPA’s rule. PNM cannot predict the outcome of OSM’s proposed rulemaking regarding CCB regulation, including mine placement of CCBs, or whether OSM’s actions will have a material impact on PNM’s operations, financial position, or cash flows.  PNM would seek recoverycertain fugitive dust emissions from its ratepayers of all CCB costs that are ultimately incurred.
Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAPs”) Rulemaking
In December 2011, the EPA issued its final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”) to reduce emissions of heavy metals, including mercury, arsenic, chromium, and nickel, as well as acid gases, including hydrochloric and hydrofluoric gases, fromFour Corners’ coal and oil-fired electric generating units with a capacitymaterial handling operations.
PNM estimates its share of at least 25 MW. Existing facilities were required to comply with the MATS rule by April 16, 2015, unless the facility was granted a 1-year extension under CAA section 112(i)(3). PNM has control technology on each of the four units at SJGS that provides 99% mercury removal efficiency. The plant is in compliance with the MATS. Therefore, PNM did not request an extension and began complying with the MATS rule by the date specified in the rule. APS has determined that no additional equipment will be requiredcosts for post-combustion controls at Four Corners Units 4 and 5 to comply withbe up to $88.9 million, including amounts incurred through December 31, 2017 and PNM’s AFUDC. See Note 17 for information on the rule.NMPRC’s treatment of these costs in PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case.

On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision overturning the MATS rule. The justices ruled that EPA should have taken costs to utilities and others in the power sector into consideration before issuing the MATS rule. The case is now remanded to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. No changes are required at SJGS as a result of the Supreme Court action.

B- 99B - 91

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

Other Commitments and Contingencies
Coal Supply

SJGS

The coal requirementsFour Corners plant site is leased from the Navajo Nation. APS, on behalf of the Four Corners participants, negotiated amendments to the existing facility lease with the Navajo Nation, which extends the Four Corners leasehold interest from 2016 to 2041.  The DOI issued a Record of Decision on July 17, 2015 approving the 25-year site lease extension for SJGS are supplied by SJCC, which through January 31, 2016 was a wholly owned subsidiary of BHP, under an underground coal sales agreement (“UG-CSA”)Four Corners, authorizes continued mining operations to supply processed coalthe remaining units at Four Corners, renews transmission line and access road rights-of-way on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations, and accepts the proposed mining plan for operation of SJGS through 2017. The parties to the UG-CSA were SJCC, PNM, and Tucson. SJCC holds certain federal, state, and private coal leases. Under the UG-CSA, SJCC was reimbursed for all costs for mining and delivering the coal, including an allocated portion of administrative costs, and received a return on its investment. BHP Minerals International, Inc. guaranteed the obligations of SJCC under the UG-CSA. In addition to coal delivered to meet the current needs of SJGS, PNM prepaid SJCC for certain coal mined but not yet delivered to the plant site. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, prepayments for coal, which are included in other current assets, amounted to $49.0 million and $37.3 million.Navajo Mine.  

In conjunction with the activities undertakenThe Four Corners participants’ obligations to comply with EPA’s final BART determinations, coupled with the CAAfinancial impact of climate change regulation or legislation, other environmental regulations, and other business or regulatory considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of Four Corners or the ability of individual participants to continue their participation in Four Corners.

Four Corners Federal Agency Lawsuit – On April 20, 2016, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit against OSM and other federal agencies in the United States District Court for SJGS, as discussed above, PNMthe District of Arizona in connection with their issuance of the approvals that extended the life of Four Corners and the other ownersadjacent mine.  The lawsuit alleges that these federal agencies violated both the ESA and NEPA in providing the federal approvals necessary to extend operations at Four Corners and the adjacent mine past July 6, 2016.  The court granted an APS motion to intervene in the litigation on August 3, 2016. On September 15, 2016, NTEC, the current owner of SJGS evaluated alternativesthe mine providing coal to Four Corners, filed a motion to intervene for the supplylimited purpose of coal to SJGS after the expirationseeking dismissal of the UG-CSA. As discussed under SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters above,lawsuit based on NTEC’s tribal sovereign immunity. On September 11, 2017, the SJGS participants recognized that prior to executingcourt granted NTEC’s motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, terminating the proceedings. The environmental group plaintiffs filed a binding restructuring agreement relating toNotice of Appeal of the ownershipdismissed order in the United States Court of SJGS, the remaining participants would need to have greater certainty in regard to the cost and availability of fuel for SJGSAppeals for the period after December 31,Ninth Circuit on November 9, 2017. PNM cannot predict if such appeal will be successful and, if it is successful, the outcome of further district court proceedings.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
On August 3, 2015, EPA established final standards to limit CO2 emissions from power plants. EPA took three separate but related actions in which it: (1) established the final carbon pollution standards for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants; (2) established the final Clean Power Plan to set standards for carbon emission reductions from existing power plants; and (3) released a proposed federal plan associated with the final Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan was published on October 23, 2015.

Following extensive negotiations amongMultiple states, utilities, and trade groups filed petitions for review in the SJGS participants,DC Circuit to challenge both the owner of SJCC,Carbon Pollution Standards for new sources and third-party miners, agreements were negotiated underthe Clean Power Plan for existing sources. Numerous parties also simultaneously filed motions to stay the Clean Power Plan during the litigation. On January 21, 2016, the DC Circuit denied petitions to stay the Clean Power Plan, but 29 states and state agencies successfully petitioned the US Supreme Court for a stay, which was granted on February 9, 2016. The decision means the ownership of SJCC would transferClean Power Plan is not in effect and neither states nor sources are obliged to a new third-party miner and PNM would enter into a new coal supply agreement (“CSA”) and agreements for CCB disposal and mine reclamation servicescomply with SJCCits requirements. With the US Supreme Court stay in place, the DC Circuit heard oral arguments on or about January 1, 2016. Effectivenessthe merits of the agreementsClean Power Plan on September 27, 2016 in front of a ten judge en banc panel. However, before the DC Circuit could issue an opinion, the Trump Administration asked that the case be held in abeyance while the rule is re-evaluated, which was dependent upon the closing of the purchase of SJCC by the new third-party miner and the finalization of the RA and other agreements, which along with regulatory approvals were necessary for the restructuring of ownership in SJGS to be consummated.granted.

On July 1, 2015, PNMMarch 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Energy Independence. The order puts forth two general policies: promote clean and Westmoreland Coal Company (“Westmoreland”) entered into asafe development of energy resources, while avoiding regulatory burdens, and ensure electricity is affordable, reliable, safe, secure, and clean.  The order directs the EPA Administrator to immediately review and, if appropriate and consistent with law, suspend, revise, or rescind (1) the Clean Power Plan, (2) the New Source Performance Standards for GHG from new, CSA, pursuantreconstructed, or modified electric generating units, (3) the Proposed Clean Power Plan Model Trading Rules, and (4) the Legal Memorandum supporting the Clean Power Plan. It also directs the EPA Administrator to which Westmoreland would supply allnotify the US Attorney General of his intent to review rules subject to pending litigation so that the US Attorney General may notify the court and, in his discretion, request that the court delay further litigation pending completion of the coal requirements of SJGS through June 30, 2022. PNM and Westmoreland also entered into agreements under which Westmoreland will provide CCB disposal and mine reclamation services. Contemporaneousreviews. In response to the Executive Order, EPA filed a petition with the entry intoDC Circuit requesting the coal-related agreements, Westmoreland entered intocases challenging the Clean Power Plan be held in abeyance until 30 days after the conclusion of EPA’s review and any subsequent rulemaking, which was granted. In addition, the DC Circuit issued a stock purchase agreement (the “Stock Purchase Agreement”) on July 1, 2015similar order in connection with a motion filed by EPA to acquire allhold cases challenging the NSPS in abeyance.

On October 10, 2017, EPA issued a NOPR proposing to repeal the Clean Power Plan and filed its status report with the court requesting the case be held in abeyance until the completion of the capital stock of SJCC. In addition, PNM, Tucson, SJCC, and SJCC’s owner entered into an agreement to terminaterulemaking on the existing UG-CSA uponproposed repeal. The NOPR proposes a legal interpretation concluding that the effective date ofClean Power Plan exceeds EPA’s statutory authority. Under the new CSA. The CSA and related agreements became effective upon the closing of the Stock Purchase Agreement and the effectiveness of the RA. The CSA and related agreements were filed with the NMPRC on July 1, 2015.proposed interpretation,

The CSA became effective as of 11:59 PM on January 31, 2016, upon the closing under the Stock Purchase Agreement. Upon closing under the Stock Purchase Agreement, Westmoreland’s rights and obligations under the CSA and the agreements for CCB disposal and mine reclamation services were assigned to SJCC. Westmoreland has guaranteed SJCC’s performance under the CSA.

Pricing under the CSA is primarily fixed, adjusted to reflect general inflation. The pricing structure takes into account that SJCC has been paid for coal mined but not delivered, as discussed above. PNM has the option to extend the CSA, subject to negotiation of the term of the extension and compensation to the miner. In order to extend, PNM must give written notice of that intent by July 1, 2018 and the parties must agree to the terms of the extension by January 1, 2019. The RA sets forth terms under which PNM will supply coal to the SJGS exiting participants for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017 and to the SJGS remaining participants over the term of the CSA. PNM anticipates that coal costs under the CSA will be significantly less than under the current arrangement with SJCC. Since substantially all of PNM’s coal costs are passed through the FPPAC, the benefit of the reduced costs and the economic benefits of the coal inventory arrangement with the exiting owners will be passed through to PNM’s customers.

In support of the closing under the Stock Purchase Agreement and to facilitate PNM customer savings, NM Capital, a wholly owned subsidiary of PNMR, provided funding of $125.0 million to Westmoreland San Juan LLC, a ring-fenced, bankruptcy-remote, special-purpose entity that is a subsidiary of Westmoreland (the “Purchaser”), to finance the purchase price of the stock

B- 100B - 92

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

Section 111(d) limits EPA’s authority to adopt performance standards to only those physical and operational changes that can be implemented within an individual source. Therefore, measures in the Clean Power Plan that would require power generators to change their energy portfolios by shifting generation from coal to gas and from fossil fuel to renewable energy exceed EPA’s statutory authority. The NOPR was published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2017, starting a 60-day public comment period and the EPA has indicated that it will continue to accept comments until April 26, 2018. Any final rule will be subject to judicial review. In a separate but related action, on December 28, 2017, EPA published the Advance Notice of SJCC and San Juan Transportation Company (“SJTC”)Proposed Rulemaking for replacement of the Clean Power Plan. EPA indicated it has not determined whether it will promulgate a new rule under the Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Westmoreland Loan”). NM Capital was able to provide the $125.0 million financing to the Purchaser by first entering intosection 111(d) or what form a $125.0 million term loan agreement (the “BTMU Term Loan Agreement”), among NM Capital, new rule would take, but is seeking public comment on that question.

The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. (“BTMU”), as lender, and BTMU, as Administrative Agent. The BTMU Term Loan Agreement is effective as of February 1, 2016, has a maturity date of February 1, 2021, and bears interest at a rate based on LIBOR plus a customary spread. In connectionproposed federal plan released concurrently with the BTMU Term Loan Agreement, PNMR, as parent company of NM Capital, entered into a Guaranty Agreement, dated as of February 1, 2016, with BTMU (the “Guaranty”). The BTMU Term Loan AgreementClean Power Plan is important to Four Corners and the Guaranty include customary covenants, including requirementsNavajo Nation. Since the Navajo Nation does not have primacy over its air quality program, EPA would be the regulatory authority responsible for PNMR to not exceed a maximum debt-to-capital ratio and customary events of default consistent with PNMR’s other term loan agreements.implementing the Clean Power Plan on the Navajo Nation if the Clean Power Plan is ultimately sustained. In addition, the BTMU Term Loan Agreementproposed rule recommended that EPA determine it is “necessary or appropriate” for EPA to regulate CO2 emissions on the Navajo Nation. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on January 21, 2016. APS and PNM filed separate comments with EPA on EPA’s draft plan and model trading rules, advocating that such a federal plan is neither necessary nor appropriate to protect air quality on the Navajo Nation. PNM is unable to predict the financial or operational impacts on Four Corners operations if the Clean Power Plan is ultimately implemented as proposed and EPA determines that a federal plan is necessary or appropriate for the Navajo Nation.

PNM’s review of the CO2 emission reductions standards under the Clean Power Plan is ongoing and the assessment of its impacts will depend on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, future GHG reduction rulemaking, litigation of any final rule, and other actions the Trump Administration is taking through judicial and regulatory proceedings. Accordingly, PNM cannot predict the impact these standards may have on its operations or a range of the potential costs of compliance, if any.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”)

The CAA requires EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. EPA has set NAAQS for certain pollutants, including NOx, SO2,ozone, and particulate matter. In 2010, EPA updated the primary NOx and SO2 NAAQS to include a 1-hour maximum standard while retaining the annual standards for NOx and SO2 and the 24-hour SO2 standard. New Mexico is in attainment for the 1-hour NOx NAAQS. On May 13, 2014, EPA released the draft data requirements rule for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which directs state and tribal air agencies to characterize current air quality in areas with large SO2 sources to identify maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations. The proposed rule also describes the process and timetable by which air regulatory agencies would characterize air quality around large SO2 sources through ambient monitoring or modeling. This characterization will result in these areas being designated as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for compliance with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. On March 2, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a settlement that imposes deadlines for EPA to identify areas that violate the NAAQS standards for 1-hour SO2 emissions. The settlement results from a lawsuit brought by Earthjustice on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council under the CAA. The consent decree requires the following: (1) within 16 months of the consent decree entry, EPA must issue area designations for areas containing non-retiring facilities that either emitted more than 16,000 tons of SO2 in 2012 or emitted more than 2,600 tons with an emission rate of 0.45 lbs/MMBTU or higher in 2012; (2) by December 2017, EPA must issue designations for areas for which states have not adopted a new monitoring network under the proposed data requirements rule; and (3) by December 2020, EPA must issue designations for areas for which states have adopted a new monitoring network under the proposed data requirements rule.  SJGS and Four Corners SO2 emissions are below the thresholds set forth in (1) above. EPA regions sent letters to state environmental agencies explaining how EPA plans to implement the consent decree.  The letters outline the schedule that EPA expects states to follow in moving forward with new SO2 non-attainment designations. NMED did not receive a letter.

On August 11, 2015, EPA released the Data Requirements Rule for SO2, telling states how to model or monitor to determine attainment or nonattainment with the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.  On June 3, 2016, NMED notified PNM that air quality modeling results indicated that SJGS was in compliance with the standard. In January 2017, NMED submitted their formal modeling report regarding attainment status to EPA. The modeling indicated that no area in New Mexico exceeds the 1-hour SO2 standard. In July of each year, NMED will submit an annual report to EPA documenting annual SO2 emissions from SJGS and the associated compliance status.


B - 93

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

On May 14, 2015, PNM received an amendment to its NSR air permit for SJGS, which reflects the revised state implementation plan for regional haze BART and requires the installation of SNCRs as described above. The revised permit also requires the reduction of SO2 emissions to 0.10 pound per MMBTU on SJGS Units 1 and 4 and the installation of BDT equipment modifications for the purpose of reducing fugitive emissions, including NOx, SO2, and particulate matter. These reductions should help SJGS meet the NAAQS for these constituents. The BDT equipment modifications were installed at the same time as the SNCRs, in order to most efficiently and cost effectively conduct construction activities at SJGS. See Regional Haze – SJGS above.

On October 1, 2015, EPA finalized the new ozone NAAQS and lowered both the primary and secondary 8-hour standard from 75 parts per billion (“ppb”) to 70 ppb. With ozone standards becoming more stringent, fossil-fueled generation units will come under increasing pressure to reduce emissions of NOx and volatile organic compounds, and to generate emission offsets for new projects or facility expansions located in nonattainment areas.

On November 10, 2015, EPA proposed a rule revising its Exceptional Events Rule, which outlines the requirements for excluding air quality data (including ozone data) from regulatory decisions if the data is affected by events outside an area’s control. The proposed rule is timely in light of the new more stringent ozone NAAQS final rule since western states like New Mexico and Arizona are particularly subject to elevated background ozone transport from natural local sources such as wildfires, and transported via winds from distant sources, such as the stratosphere or another region or country.

On February 25, 2016, EPA released guidance on area designations, which states used to determine their initial designation recommendations by October 1, 2016. EPA recommended that states and tribes use the three most recent years of quality assured monitoring data available (e.g., 2013 to 2015) to recommend designations. In their submittals, states and tribes were also able to use preliminary 2016 data. EPA was expected to release final designations of attainment/nonattainment for areas by October 1, 2017. On June 6, 2017, the EPA Administrator sent letters to state governors announcing that EPA was extending, by one year, the deadline for promulgating area designations. However, on August 2, 2017, the Trump Administration reversed the decision to extend the deadline to issue area designations, thereby requiring EPA to issue designations for ozone attainment areas by October 1, 2017.

NMED published its 2015 Ozone NAAQS Designation Recommendation Report on September 2, 2016. In New Mexico, NMED is designating only a small area in southern Dona Ana County as non-attainment for ozone. NMED will have responsibility for bringing this non-attainment area into compliance and will look at all sources of NOx and volatile organic compounds since these are the pollutants that form ground-level ozone. According to NMED’s website, “If emissions from Mexico keep New Mexico from meeting the standards, the New Mexico area could remain non-attainment but would not face more stringent requirements over time.”

On November 6, 2017, EPA released a final rule establishing some, but not all, initial area designations.  In that final rule, EPA designated 2,646 counties (representing about 85% of the counties in the U.S.) as attainment/unclassifiable, and three counties in Washington as unclassifiable.  San Juan County, New Mexico, where SJGS and Four Corners are located, is designated as attainment/unclassifiable. On December 21, 2017, EPA issued a notice of availability of its intended designations for the remaining undesignated areas. EPA stated that it intended to address the remaining areas in a separate future action, but did not specify a time frame for doing so.  Under the CAA, EPA was required to promulgate area designations no later than October 1, 2017. The notice announces the availability of “120-day letters,” which were sent directly to states and tribes on December 20, 2017, and contain EPA’s intended air quality designations for the remaining areas. The only county in New Mexico designated as non-attainment is Dona Ana County.  By February 28, 2018, states and tribes must provide EPA any additional information they would like EPA to consider before it promulgates final designations.  EPA stated it intends to finalize designations for all areas addressed in the 120-day letters no later than April 30, 2018.

By October 2018, NMED is required to submit an infrastructure SIP that provides the basic air quality management program to implement the revised ozone standard. These plans are generally due within 36 months from the date of designation and are expected to be submitted to EPA by October 1, 2020.

PNM does not believe there will be material impacts to its facilities as a result of NMED’s nonattainment designation of the small area within Dona Ana County. Until EPA approves attainment designations for the Navajo Nation and releases a proposal to implement the revised ozone NAAQS, APS is unable to predict what impact the adoption of these standards may have on Four Corners. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

B - 94

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

WEG v. OSM NEPA Lawsuit

In February 2013, WEG filed a Petition for Review in the United States District Court of Colorado against 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 OSM.  WEG alleges various NEPA violations against OSM, including, but not limited to, 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 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 NEPA has been demonstrated; and enjoining operations at the seven mines.

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 OSM administrative actions in 2008. SJCC intervened in this matter. The court granted SJCC’s motion to sever its claims from the lawsuit and transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. In July 2016, OSM filed a Motion for Voluntary Remand to allow the agency to conduct a new environmental analysis. On August 31, 2016, the court entered an order remanding the matter to OSM for the completion of an EIS by August 31, 2019. The court ruled that mining operations may continue in the interim and the litigation is administratively closed. If OSM does not complete the EIS within the time frame provided, the court will order immediate vacatur of the mining plan at issue, absent a further court order based on good cause shown.  On March 22, 2017, OSM issued its Notice of Intent to initiate the public scoping process and prepare an EIS for the project. The Notice of Intent provided that, in addition to analyzing the environmental effects of the mining project, the EIS will also analyze the indirect effects of coal combustion at SJGS. The public comment period ended on May 8, 2017 and the EIS resource data submittal phase was completed in November 2017. The draft EIS is expected to be available for public comment in mid-2018. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter.
Navajo Nation Environmental Issues
Four Corners is located on the Navajo Reservation and is held under an easement granted by the federal government, as well as a lease from the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Acts purport to give the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency authority to promulgate regulations covering air quality, drinking water, and pesticide activities, including those activities that occur at Four Corners. In October 1995, the Four Corners participants filed a lawsuit in the District Court of the Navajo Nation challenging the applicability of the Navajo Acts to Four Corners. In May 2005, APS and the Navajo Nation signed an agreement resolving the dispute regarding the Navajo Nation’s authority to adopt operating permit regulations under the Navajo Nation Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act. As a result of this agreement, APS sought, and the court granted, dismissal of the pending litigation in the Navajo Nation Supreme Court and the Navajo Nation District Court, to the extent the claims relate to the CAA. The agreement does not address or resolve any dispute relating to other aspects of the Navajo Acts. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of these matters or the range of their potential impacts.
Cooling Water Intake Structures
EPA signed its final cooling water intake structures rule on May 16, 2014, which establishes national standards for certain cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and other facilities under the Clean Water Act to protect fish and other aquatic organisms by minimizing impingement mortality (the capture of aquatic wildlife on intake structures or against screens) and entrainment mortality (the capture of fish or shellfish in water flow entering and passing through intake structures). The final rule was published on August 15, 2014 and became effective October 14, 2014.
The final rule allows multiple compliance options and considerations for site specific conditions and the permit writer is granted a significant amount of discretion in determining permit requirements, schedules, and conditions. To minimize impingement mortality, the rule provides operators of facilities, such as SJGS and Four Corners, seven options for meeting Best Technology Available (“BTA”) standards for reducing impingement. SJGS has a cross default provisionclosed-cycle recirculating cooling system, which is a listed BTA and may also qualify for the “de minimis rate of impingement” based on the design of the intake structure. To minimize entrainment mortality, the permitting authority must establish the BTA for entrainment on a changesite-specific basis, taking into consideration an array of control provision.factors, including endangered species and social costs and benefits. Affected sources must submit source water baseline characterization data to the permitting authority to assist in the determination. Compliance deadlines under the rule are tied to permit renewal and will be subject to a schedule of compliance established by the permitting authority.

B - 95

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

The Westmoreland Loanrule is not clear as to how it applies and what the compliance timelines are for facilities like SJGS that have a $125.0 million loan agreement among NM Capital,cooling water intake structure and only a multi-sector general stormwater permit. PNM is working with EPA regarding this issue. However, PNM does not expect material changes as lender, Purchaser,a result of any requirements that may be imposed upon SJGS. The requirements related to Four Corners will be addressed in a subsequent NPDES permitting cycle that will determine APS’s costs to comply with the rule. PNM does not expect such costs to be material.

Effluent Limitation Guidelines

On June 7, 2013, EPA published proposed revised wastewater effluent limitation guidelines establishing technology-based wastewater discharge limitations for fossil fuel-fired electric power plants.  EPA’s proposal offered numerous options that target metals and other pollutants in wastewater streams originating from fly ash and bottom ash handling activities, scrubber activities, and non-chemical metal cleaning waste operations.  All proposed alternatives establish a “zero discharge” effluent limit for all pollutants in fly ash transport water. Requirements governing bottom ash transport water differ depending on which alternative EPA ultimately chooses and could range from effluent limits based on Best Available Technology Economically Achievable to “zero discharge” effluent limits.

EPA signed the final Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines rule on September 30, 2015. The final rule, which became effective on January 4, 2016, phases in the new, more stringent requirements in the form of effluent limits for arsenic, mercury, selenium, and nitrogen for wastewater discharged from wet scrubber systems and zero discharge of pollutants in ash transport water that must be incorporated into plants’ NPDES permits. Each plant must comply between 2018 and 2023 depending on when it needs a new/revised NPDES permit.

On April 14, 2017, EPA filed a motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relating to ongoing litigation of the 2016 Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines rule. EPA asked the court to hold all proceedings in the case in abeyance until August 12, 2017 while EPA reconsiders the rule. EPA also asked to be allowed to file a motion on August 12, 2017 to inform the court if EPA wishes to seek a remand of any provisions of the rule so that EPA may conduct further rulemaking, if appropriate. The motion referred to the notice signed by the EPA Administrator on April 12, 2017, which announced EPA’s intent to reconsider this rule, as borrower, SJCCwell as EPA’s administrative stay of the compliance deadlines. On August 22, 2017, the court granted the government’s motion and SJTC,the litigation is held in abeyance until EPA’s further rulemaking has concluded.

On April 25, 2017, EPA published in the Federal Register a notice of postponement of certain compliance dates for the 2016 Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines rule, consistent with the EPA's decision to grant reconsideration of the rule. Specifically, the deadlines that will be postponed are the "best available technology" limitations and pretreatment standards for certain waste streams.

On September 18, 2017, EPA published the final rule for postponement of certain compliance dates that have not yet passed for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines rule, consistent with the EPA's decision to grant reconsideration of that rule. The final rule postponed the earliest date on which compliance with the effluent limitation guidelines for these waste streams would be required from November 1, 2018 until November 1, 2020.

Because SJGS is zero discharge for wastewater and is not required hold a NPDES permit, it is expected that minimal to no requirements will be imposed. Reeves Station, a PNM-owned gas-fired generating station, discharges cooling tower blowdown to a publicly owned treatment works and holds an NPDES permit. It is expected that minimal to no requirements will be imposed at Reeves

Four Corners may be required to change equipment and operating practices affecting boilers and ash handling systems, as guarantors, BTMU,well as Administrative Agent,change its waste disposal techniques. Until a draft NPDES permit is proposed for Four Corners, APS is uncertain what will be required to comply with the revised effluent limitations during the revised compliance timeframe (from November 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023).  PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or a range of the potential costs of compliance.
Santa Fe Generating Station
PNM and MUFG Union Bank, N.A., as Depository Bank. The Westmoreland Loan is effective asthe NMED are parties to agreements under which PNM installed a remediation system to treat water from a City of February 1,Santa Fe municipal supply well, an extraction well, and monitoring wells to address gasoline contamination in the

B - 96

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and has a maturity date of February 1, 2021. The Westmoreland Loan initially bears interest at a 7.25% rate plus LIBOR and escalates over time.2015

groundwater at the site of PNM’s former Santa Fe Generating Station and service center. PNM believes the observed groundwater contamination originated from off-site sources, but agreed to operate the remediation facilities until the groundwater meets applicable federal and state standards or until the NMED determines that additional remediation is not required, whichever is earlier. The Westmoreland Loan was used byCity of Santa Fe has indicated that since the Purchaser solelyCity no longer needs the water from the well, the City would prefer to financediscontinue its operation and maintain it only as a backup water source. However, for PNM’s groundwater remediation system to operate, the purchase pricewater well must be in service. Currently, PNM is not able to assess the duration of this project or estimate the impact on its obligations if the City of Santa Fe ceases to operate the water well.
The Superfund Oversight Section of the stockNMED also has conducted multiple investigations into the chlorinated solvent plume in the vicinity of SJCC and SJTC under the Stock Purchase Agreement. The Purchaser must pay principal and interest quarterlysite of the former Santa Fe Generating Station. In February 2008, a NMED site inspection report was submitted to NM Capital in accordance with an amortization schedule. The Westmoreland LoanEPA, which states that neither the source nor extent of contamination has been structureddetermined and that the source may not be the former Santa Fe Generating Station. Results of tests conducted by NMED in April 2012 and April 2013 showed elevated concentrations of nitrate in three monitoring wells and an increase in free-phase hydrocarbons in another well. PNM conducted similar site-wide sampling activities in April 2014 and obtained results similar to encourage prepayments and early retirementthe 2013 data. As part of this effort, PNM also collected a sample of hydrocarbon product for “fingerprint” analysis from a monitoring well located on the northeastern corner of the debt. The Westmoreland Loan also includes customary representationsproperty.  This analysis indicated that the hydrocarbon product was a mixture of newer and warranties, covenants,older fuels, and eventsthe location of default. There arethe monitoring well suggests that the hydrocarbon product is likely from offsite sources. PNM does not believe the former generating station is the source of the increased levels of free-phase hydrocarbons, but no prepayment penalties.

Underconclusive determinations have been made. However, it is possible that PNM’s prior activities to remediate hydrocarbon contamination, as conducted under an NMED-approved plan, may have resulted in increased nitrate levels.  Therefore, PNM has agreed to monitor nitrate levels in a limited number of wells under the terms of the CSA,renewed discharge permit for the former generating station. 

Effective December 22, 2015, PNM and NMED entered into a memorandum of understanding to address changing groundwater quality conditions at the site. Under the memorandum, PNM will continue hydrocarbon investigation of the site under the supervision of NMED and qualified costs of the work will be eligible for payment through the New Mexico Corrective Action Fund (“CAF”), which is administered by the NMED Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau. Among other SJGSthings, money in the CAF is available to NMED to make payments to or on behalf of owners are obligatedand operators for corrective action taken in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements to compensate SJCCinvestigate, minimize, eliminate, or clean up a release. PNM’s work plan and cost estimates for all reclamation liabilitiesspecific groundwater investigation tasks were approved by the Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau. PNM submitted a monitoring plan consisting of a compilation of the data associated with the supplyrecent monitoring activities conducted under the CAF to NMED on October 3, 2016. PNM has completed all CAF-related work associated with the monitoring plan and has received NMED’s approval. Under the next phase, PNM’s contractor prepared a scope of coal from the San Juan mine. In order to assure the reclamation obligations, each of the SJGS owners agreed to fund an irrevocable trust to be maintainedwork, which PNM and NMED have approved, for the sole purposeinstallation of fundingadditional monitoring wells and additional sampling of certain existing monitoring wells at the reclamationsite. Work is expected to commence in March 2018. Qualified costs of this work will be eligible for payment through the San Juan mine site (each such trust, a “Reclamation Trust”), as further discussed under Coal Mine Reclamation below.CAF.

In connection with certain mining permits relating to the operation of the San Juan mine, SJCC is required to post reclamation bonds of $161.6 million with the New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division (“NMMMD”). In order to facilitate the posting of reclamation bonds by Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) on behalf of SJCC, a Reclamation Bond Agreement (the “Reclamation Bond Agreement”) among PNMR, Westmoreland, and SJCC was entered into with Zurich. In connection with the Reclamation Bond Agreement, PNMR used $40.0 million of the available capacity under the PNMR Revolving Credit Facility to support a bank letter of credit arrangement (the “Zurich Letter of Credit”) with Zurich. The Reclamation Bond Agreement provides, among other things, (i) certain obligations for PNMR to provide to Zurich, within 180 days, security interests in the Reclamation Trusts of the Purchaser and the SJGS owners, and (ii) if PNMRPNM is unable to provide security interests inpredict the Reclamation Trustsoutcome of certain SJGS owners (the “Base Security Interests”), PNMR, Westmoreland (subject to obtaining certain amendments or consents under its senior debt and credit facilities), and SJCC will be responsible, jointly and severally, to provide additional collateral to support the then outstanding reclamation bond amount, which will remain in place until such time as PNMR is able to provide the Base Security Interests. The Zurich Letter of Credit will be terminated upon PNMR providing security interests in the Reclamation Trusts of all SJGS owners. Also, the Zurich Letter of Credit will be proportionally reduced if PNMR is able to provide, in addition, to the Base Security Interests, security interests in the Reclamation Trusts of some, but not all, of the other SJGS owners or if the initial reclamation bonds amount is reduced. The reclamation bonds may be replaced or otherwise released at any time by SJCC with the concurrence of NMMMD. PNM cannot predict if it will be able to obtain any such security interests or the impacts of not being able to do so.these matters.
Four Corners

On August 6, 2012, EPA issued its Four Corners FIP with a final BART determination for Four Corners. The rule included two compliance alternatives. On December 30, 2013, APS notified EPA that the Four Corners participants selected the alternative that required APS to permanently close Units 1, 2, and 3 by January 1, 2014 and install SCR post-combustion NOx controls on each of Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018. PNM owns a 13% interest in Units 4 and 5, but had no ownership interest in Units 1, 2, and 3, which were shut down by APS on December 30, 2013. For particulate matter emissions, EPA is requiring Units 4 and 5 to meet an emission limit of 0.015 lbs/MMBTU and the plant to meet a 20% opacity limit, both of which are achievable through operation of the existing baghouses. Although unrelated to BART, the final BART rule also imposes a 20% opacity limitation on certain fugitive dust emissions from Four Corners’ coal and material handling operations.
PNM estimates its share of costs for post-combustion controls at Four Corners Units 4 and 5 to be up to $88.9 million, including amounts incurred through December 31, 2017 and PNM’s AFUDC. See Note 17 for information on the NMPRC’s treatment of these costs in PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case.

B - 91

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

The Four Corners plant site is leased from the Navajo Nation. APS, on behalf of the Four Corners participants, negotiated amendments to the existing facility lease with the Navajo Nation, which extends the Four Corners leasehold interest from 2016 to 2041.  The DOI issued a Record of Decision on July 17, 2015 approving the 25-year site lease extension for Four Corners, authorizes continued mining operations to supply the remaining units at Four Corners, renews transmission line and access road rights-of-way on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations, and accepts the proposed mining plan for the Navajo Mine.  

The Four Corners participants’ obligations to comply with EPA’s final BART determinations, coupled with the financial impact of climate change regulation or legislation, other environmental regulations, and other business or regulatory considerations, could jeopardize the economic viability of Four Corners or the ability of individual participants to continue their participation in Four Corners.

Four Corners Federal Agency Lawsuit – On April 20, 2016, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit against OSM and other federal agencies in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in connection with their issuance of the approvals that extended the life of Four Corners and the adjacent mine.  The lawsuit alleges that these federal agencies violated both the ESA and NEPA in providing the federal approvals necessary to extend operations at Four Corners and the adjacent mine past July 6, 2016.  The court granted an APS motion to intervene in the litigation on August 3, 2016. On September 15, 2016, NTEC, the current owner of the mine providing coal to Four Corners, filed a motion to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking dismissal of the lawsuit based on NTEC’s tribal sovereign immunity. On September 11, 2017, the court granted NTEC’s motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, terminating the proceedings. The environmental group plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissed order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 9, 2017. PNM cannot predict if such appeal will be successful and, if it is successful, the outcome of further district court proceedings.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
On August 3, 2015, EPA established final standards to limit CO2 emissions from power plants. EPA took three separate but related actions in which it: (1) established the final carbon pollution standards for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants; (2) established the final Clean Power Plan to set standards for carbon emission reductions from existing power plants; and (3) released a proposed federal plan associated with the final Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan was published on October 23, 2015.

Multiple states, utilities, and trade groups filed petitions for review in the DC Circuit to challenge both the Carbon Pollution Standards for new sources and the Clean Power Plan for existing sources. Numerous parties also simultaneously filed motions to stay the Clean Power Plan during the litigation. On January 21, 2016, the DC Circuit denied petitions to stay the Clean Power Plan, but 29 states and state agencies successfully petitioned the US Supreme Court for a stay, which was granted on February 9, 2016. The decision means the Clean Power Plan is not in effect and neither states nor sources are obliged to comply with its requirements. With the US Supreme Court stay in place, the DC Circuit heard oral arguments on the merits of the Clean Power Plan on September 27, 2016 in front of a ten judge en banc panel. However, before the DC Circuit could issue an opinion, the Trump Administration asked that the case be held in abeyance while the rule is re-evaluated, which was granted.

On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Energy Independence. The order puts forth two general policies: promote clean and safe development of energy resources, while avoiding regulatory burdens, and ensure electricity is affordable, reliable, safe, secure, and clean.  The order directs the EPA Administrator to immediately review and, if appropriate and consistent with law, suspend, revise, or rescind (1) the Clean Power Plan, (2) the New Source Performance Standards for GHG from new, reconstructed, or modified electric generating units, (3) the Proposed Clean Power Plan Model Trading Rules, and (4) the Legal Memorandum supporting the Clean Power Plan. It also directs the EPA Administrator to notify the US Attorney General of his intent to review rules subject to pending litigation so that the US Attorney General may notify the court and, in his discretion, request that the court delay further litigation pending completion of the reviews. In response to the Executive Order, EPA filed a petition with the DC Circuit requesting the cases challenging the Clean Power Plan be held in abeyance until 30 days after the conclusion of EPA’s review and any subsequent rulemaking, which was granted. In addition, the DC Circuit issued a similar order in connection with a motion filed by EPA to hold cases challenging the NSPS in abeyance.

On October 10, 2017, EPA issued a NOPR proposing to repeal the Clean Power Plan and filed its status report with the court requesting the case be held in abeyance until the completion of the rulemaking on the proposed repeal. The NOPR proposes a legal interpretation concluding that the Clean Power Plan exceeds EPA’s statutory authority. Under the proposed interpretation,

B - 92

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

Section 111(d) limits EPA’s authority to adopt performance standards to only those physical and operational changes that can be implemented within an individual source. Therefore, measures in the Clean Power Plan that would require power generators to change their energy portfolios by shifting generation from coal to gas and from fossil fuel to renewable energy exceed EPA’s statutory authority. The NOPR was published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2017, starting a 60-day public comment period and the EPA has indicated that it will continue to accept comments until April 26, 2018. Any final rule will be subject to judicial review. In a separate but related action, on December 28, 2017, EPA published the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for replacement of the Clean Power Plan. EPA indicated it has not determined whether it will promulgate a new rule under section 111(d) or what form a new rule would take, but is seeking public comment on that question.

The proposed federal plan released concurrently with the Clean Power Plan is important to Four Corners and the Navajo Nation. Since the Navajo Nation does not have primacy over its air quality program, EPA would be the regulatory authority responsible for implementing the Clean Power Plan on the Navajo Nation if the Clean Power Plan is ultimately sustained. In addition, the proposed rule recommended that EPA determine it is “necessary or appropriate” for EPA to regulate CO2 emissions on the Navajo Nation. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on January 21, 2016. APS and PNM filed separate comments with EPA on EPA’s draft plan and model trading rules, advocating that such a federal plan is neither necessary nor appropriate to protect air quality on the Navajo Nation. PNM is unable to predict the financial or operational impacts on Four Corners operations if the Clean Power Plan is ultimately implemented as proposed and EPA determines that a federal plan is necessary or appropriate for the Navajo Nation.

PNM’s review of the CO2 emission reductions standards under the Clean Power Plan is ongoing and the assessment of its impacts will depend on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, future GHG reduction rulemaking, litigation of any final rule, and other actions the Trump Administration is taking through judicial and regulatory proceedings. Accordingly, PNM cannot predict the impact these standards may have on its operations or a range of the potential costs of compliance, if any.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”)

The CAA requires EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. EPA has set NAAQS for certain pollutants, including NOx, SO2,ozone, and particulate matter. In 2010, EPA updated the primary NOx and SO2 NAAQS to include a 1-hour maximum standard while retaining the annual standards for NOx and SO2 and the 24-hour SO2 standard. New Mexico is in attainment for the 1-hour NOx NAAQS. On May 13, 2014, EPA released the draft data requirements rule for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which directs state and tribal air agencies to characterize current air quality in areas with large SO2 sources to identify maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations. The proposed rule also describes the process and timetable by which air regulatory agencies would characterize air quality around large SO2 sources through ambient monitoring or modeling. This characterization will result in these areas being designated as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for compliance with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. On March 2, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a settlement that imposes deadlines for EPA to identify areas that violate the NAAQS standards for 1-hour SO2 emissions. The settlement results from a lawsuit brought by Earthjustice on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council under the CAA. The consent decree requires the following: (1) within 16 months of the consent decree entry, EPA must issue area designations for areas containing non-retiring facilities that either emitted more than 16,000 tons of SO2 in 2012 or emitted more than 2,600 tons with an emission rate of 0.45 lbs/MMBTU or higher in 2012; (2) by December 2017, EPA must issue designations for areas for which states have not adopted a new monitoring network under the proposed data requirements rule; and (3) by December 2020, EPA must issue designations for areas for which states have adopted a new monitoring network under the proposed data requirements rule.  SJGS and Four Corners SO2 emissions are below the thresholds set forth in (1) above. EPA regions sent letters to state environmental agencies explaining how EPA plans to implement the consent decree.  The letters outline the schedule that EPA expects states to follow in moving forward with new SO2 non-attainment designations. NMED did not receive a letter.

On August 11, 2015, EPA released the Data Requirements Rule for SO2, telling states how to model or monitor to determine attainment or nonattainment with the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.  On June 3, 2016, NMED notified PNM that air quality modeling results indicated that SJGS was in compliance with the standard. In January 2017, NMED submitted their formal modeling report regarding attainment status to EPA. The modeling indicated that no area in New Mexico exceeds the 1-hour SO2 standard. In July of each year, NMED will submit an annual report to EPA documenting annual SO2 emissions from SJGS and the associated compliance status.


B - 93

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

On May 14, 2015, PNM received an amendment to its NSR air permit for SJGS, which reflects the revised state implementation plan for regional haze BART and requires the installation of SNCRs as described above. The revised permit also requires the reduction of SO2 emissions to 0.10 pound per MMBTU on SJGS Units 1 and 4 and the installation of BDT equipment modifications for the purpose of reducing fugitive emissions, including NOx, SO2, and particulate matter. These reductions should help SJGS meet the NAAQS for these constituents. The BDT equipment modifications were installed at the same time as the SNCRs, in order to most efficiently and cost effectively conduct construction activities at SJGS. See Regional Haze – SJGS above.

On October 1, 2015, EPA finalized the new ozone NAAQS and lowered both the primary and secondary 8-hour standard from 75 parts per billion (“ppb”) to 70 ppb. With ozone standards becoming more stringent, fossil-fueled generation units will come under increasing pressure to reduce emissions of NOx and volatile organic compounds, and to generate emission offsets for new projects or facility expansions located in nonattainment areas.

On November 10, 2015, EPA proposed a rule revising its Exceptional Events Rule, which outlines the requirements for excluding air quality data (including ozone data) from regulatory decisions if the data is affected by events outside an area’s control. The proposed rule is timely in light of the new more stringent ozone NAAQS final rule since western states like New Mexico and Arizona are particularly subject to elevated background ozone transport from natural local sources such as wildfires, and transported via winds from distant sources, such as the stratosphere or another region or country.

On February 25, 2016, EPA released guidance on area designations, which states used to determine their initial designation recommendations by October 1, 2016. EPA recommended that states and tribes use the three most recent years of quality assured monitoring data available (e.g., 2013 to 2015) to recommend designations. In their submittals, states and tribes were also able to use preliminary 2016 data. EPA was expected to release final designations of attainment/nonattainment for areas by October 1, 2017. On June 6, 2017, the EPA Administrator sent letters to state governors announcing that EPA was extending, by one year, the deadline for promulgating area designations. However, on August 2, 2017, the Trump Administration reversed the decision to extend the deadline to issue area designations, thereby requiring EPA to issue designations for ozone attainment areas by October 1, 2017.

NMED published its 2015 Ozone NAAQS Designation Recommendation Report on September 2, 2016. In New Mexico, NMED is designating only a small area in southern Dona Ana County as non-attainment for ozone. NMED will have responsibility for bringing this non-attainment area into compliance and will look at all sources of NOx and volatile organic compounds since these are the pollutants that form ground-level ozone. According to NMED’s website, “If emissions from Mexico keep New Mexico from meeting the standards, the New Mexico area could remain non-attainment but would not face more stringent requirements over time.”

On November 6, 2017, EPA released a final rule establishing some, but not all, initial area designations.  In that final rule, EPA designated 2,646 counties (representing about 85% of the counties in the U.S.) as attainment/unclassifiable, and three counties in Washington as unclassifiable.  San Juan County, New Mexico, where SJGS and Four Corners are located, is designated as attainment/unclassifiable. On December 21, 2017, EPA issued a notice of availability of its intended designations for the remaining undesignated areas. EPA stated that it intended to address the remaining areas in a separate future action, but did not specify a time frame for doing so.  Under the CAA, EPA was required to promulgate area designations no later than October 1, 2017. The notice announces the availability of “120-day letters,” which were sent directly to states and tribes on December 20, 2017, and contain EPA’s intended air quality designations for the remaining areas. The only county in New Mexico designated as non-attainment is Dona Ana County.  By February 28, 2018, states and tribes must provide EPA any additional information they would like EPA to consider before it promulgates final designations.  EPA stated it intends to finalize designations for all areas addressed in the 120-day letters no later than April 30, 2018.

By October 2018, NMED is required to submit an infrastructure SIP that provides the basic air quality management program to implement the revised ozone standard. These plans are generally due within 36 months from the date of designation and are expected to be submitted to EPA by October 1, 2020.

PNM does not believe there will be material impacts to its facilities as a result of NMED’s nonattainment designation of the small area within Dona Ana County. Until EPA approves attainment designations for the Navajo Nation and releases a proposal to implement the revised ozone NAAQS, APS is unable to predict what impact the adoption of these standards may have on Four Corners. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

B - 94

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

WEG v. OSM NEPA Lawsuit

In February 2013, WEG filed a Petition for Review in the United States District Court of Colorado against 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 OSM.  WEG alleges various NEPA violations against OSM, including, but not limited to, 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 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 NEPA has been demonstrated; and enjoining operations at the seven mines.

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 OSM administrative actions in 2008. SJCC intervened in this matter. The court granted SJCC’s motion to sever its claims from the lawsuit and transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. In July 2016, OSM filed a Motion for Voluntary Remand to allow the agency to conduct a new environmental analysis. On August 31, 2016, the court entered an order remanding the matter to OSM for the completion of an EIS by August 31, 2019. The court ruled that mining operations may continue in the interim and the litigation is administratively closed. If OSM does not complete the EIS within the time frame provided, the court will order immediate vacatur of the mining plan at issue, absent a further court order based on good cause shown.  On March 22, 2017, OSM issued its Notice of Intent to initiate the public scoping process and prepare an EIS for the project. The Notice of Intent provided that, in addition to analyzing the environmental effects of the mining project, the EIS will also analyze the indirect effects of coal combustion at SJGS. The public comment period ended on May 8, 2017 and the EIS resource data submittal phase was completed in November 2017. The draft EIS is expected to be available for public comment in mid-2018. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of this matter.
Navajo Nation Environmental Issues
Four Corners is located on the Navajo Reservation and is held under an easement granted by the federal government, as well as a lease from the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Acts purport to give the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency authority to promulgate regulations covering air quality, drinking water, and pesticide activities, including those activities that occur at Four Corners. In October 1995, the Four Corners participants filed a lawsuit in the District Court of the Navajo Nation challenging the applicability of the Navajo Acts to Four Corners. In May 2005, APS and the Navajo Nation signed an agreement resolving the dispute regarding the Navajo Nation’s authority to adopt operating permit regulations under the Navajo Nation Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act. As a result of this agreement, APS sought, and the court granted, dismissal of the pending litigation in the Navajo Nation Supreme Court and the Navajo Nation District Court, to the extent the claims relate to the CAA. The agreement does not address or resolve any dispute relating to other aspects of the Navajo Acts. PNM cannot currently predict the outcome of these matters or the range of their potential impacts.
Cooling Water Intake Structures
EPA signed its final cooling water intake structures rule on May 16, 2014, which establishes national standards for certain cooling water intake structures at existing power plants and other facilities under the Clean Water Act to protect fish and other aquatic organisms by minimizing impingement mortality (the capture of aquatic wildlife on intake structures or against screens) and entrainment mortality (the capture of fish or shellfish in water flow entering and passing through intake structures). The final rule was published on August 15, 2014 and became effective October 14, 2014.
The final rule allows multiple compliance options and considerations for site specific conditions and the permit writer is granted a significant amount of discretion in determining permit requirements, schedules, and conditions. To minimize impingement mortality, the rule provides operators of facilities, such as SJGS and Four Corners, seven options for meeting Best Technology Available (“BTA”) standards for reducing impingement. SJGS has a closed-cycle recirculating cooling system, which is a listed BTA and may also qualify for the “de minimis rate of impingement” based on the design of the intake structure. To minimize entrainment mortality, the permitting authority must establish the BTA for entrainment on a site-specific basis, taking into consideration an array of factors, including endangered species and social costs and benefits. Affected sources must submit source water baseline characterization data to the permitting authority to assist in the determination. Compliance deadlines under the rule are tied to permit renewal and will be subject to a schedule of compliance established by the permitting authority.

B - 95

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

The rule is not clear as to how it applies and what the compliance timelines are for facilities like SJGS that have a cooling water intake structure and only a multi-sector general stormwater permit. PNM is working with EPA regarding this issue. However, PNM does not expect material changes as a result of any requirements that may be imposed upon SJGS. The requirements related to Four Corners will be addressed in a subsequent NPDES permitting cycle that will determine APS’s costs to comply with the rule. PNM does not expect such costs to be material.

Effluent Limitation Guidelines

On June 7, 2013, EPA published proposed revised wastewater effluent limitation guidelines establishing technology-based wastewater discharge limitations for fossil fuel-fired electric power plants.  EPA’s proposal offered numerous options that target metals and other pollutants in wastewater streams originating from fly ash and bottom ash handling activities, scrubber activities, and non-chemical metal cleaning waste operations.  All proposed alternatives establish a “zero discharge” effluent limit for all pollutants in fly ash transport water. Requirements governing bottom ash transport water differ depending on which alternative EPA ultimately chooses and could range from effluent limits based on Best Available Technology Economically Achievable to “zero discharge” effluent limits.

EPA signed the final Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines rule on September 30, 2015. The final rule, which became effective on January 4, 2016, phases in the new, more stringent requirements in the form of effluent limits for arsenic, mercury, selenium, and nitrogen for wastewater discharged from wet scrubber systems and zero discharge of pollutants in ash transport water that must be incorporated into plants’ NPDES permits. Each plant must comply between 2018 and 2023 depending on when it needs a new/revised NPDES permit.

On April 14, 2017, EPA filed a motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relating to ongoing litigation of the 2016 Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines rule. EPA asked the court to hold all proceedings in the case in abeyance until August 12, 2017 while EPA reconsiders the rule. EPA also asked to be allowed to file a motion on August 12, 2017 to inform the court if EPA wishes to seek a remand of any provisions of the rule so that EPA may conduct further rulemaking, if appropriate. The motion referred to the notice signed by the EPA Administrator on April 12, 2017, which announced EPA’s intent to reconsider this rule, as well as EPA’s administrative stay of the compliance deadlines. On August 22, 2017, the court granted the government’s motion and the litigation is held in abeyance until EPA’s further rulemaking has concluded.

On April 25, 2017, EPA published in the Federal Register a notice of postponement of certain compliance dates for the 2016 Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines rule, consistent with the EPA's decision to grant reconsideration of the rule. Specifically, the deadlines that will be postponed are the "best available technology" limitations and pretreatment standards for certain waste streams.

On September 18, 2017, EPA published the final rule for postponement of certain compliance dates that have not yet passed for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines rule, consistent with the EPA's decision to grant reconsideration of that rule. The final rule postponed the earliest date on which compliance with the effluent limitation guidelines for these waste streams would be required from November 1, 2018 until November 1, 2020.

Because SJGS is zero discharge for wastewater and is not required hold a NPDES permit, it is expected that minimal to no requirements will be imposed. Reeves Station, a PNM-owned gas-fired generating station, discharges cooling tower blowdown to a publicly owned treatment works and holds an NPDES permit. It is expected that minimal to no requirements will be imposed at Reeves

Four Corners may be required to change equipment and operating practices affecting boilers and ash handling systems, as well as change its waste disposal techniques. Until a draft NPDES permit is proposed for Four Corners, APS is uncertain what will be required to comply with the revised effluent limitations during the revised compliance timeframe (from November 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023).  PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or a range of the potential costs of compliance.
Santa Fe Generating Station
PNM and the NMED are parties to agreements under which PNM installed a remediation system to treat water from a City of Santa Fe municipal supply well, an extraction well, and monitoring wells to address gasoline contamination in the

B - 96

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

groundwater at the site of PNM’s former Santa Fe Generating Station and service center. PNM believes the observed groundwater contamination originated from off-site sources, but agreed to operate the remediation facilities until the groundwater meets applicable federal and state standards or until the NMED determines that additional remediation is not required, whichever is earlier. The City of Santa Fe has indicated that since the City no longer needs the water from the well, the City would prefer to discontinue its operation and maintain it only as a backup water source. However, for PNM’s groundwater remediation system to operate, the water well must be in service. Currently, PNM is not able to assess the duration of this project or estimate the impact on its obligations if the City of Santa Fe ceases to operate the water well.
The Superfund Oversight Section of the NMED also has conducted multiple investigations into the chlorinated solvent plume in the vicinity of the site of the former Santa Fe Generating Station. In February 2008, a NMED site inspection report was submitted to EPA, which states that neither the source nor extent of contamination has been determined and that the source may not be the former Santa Fe Generating Station. Results of tests conducted by NMED in April 2012 and April 2013 showed elevated concentrations of nitrate in three monitoring wells and an increase in free-phase hydrocarbons in another well. PNM conducted similar site-wide sampling activities in April 2014 and obtained results similar to the 2013 data. As part of this effort, PNM also collected a sample of hydrocarbon product for “fingerprint” analysis from a monitoring well located on the northeastern corner of the property.  This analysis indicated that the hydrocarbon product was a mixture of newer and older fuels, and the location of the monitoring well suggests that the hydrocarbon product is likely from offsite sources. PNM does not believe the former generating station is the source of the increased levels of free-phase hydrocarbons, but no conclusive determinations have been made. However, it is possible that PNM’s prior activities to remediate hydrocarbon contamination, as conducted under an NMED-approved plan, may have resulted in increased nitrate levels.  Therefore, PNM has agreed to monitor nitrate levels in a limited number of wells under the terms of the renewed discharge permit for the former generating station. 

Effective December 22, 2015, PNM and NMED entered into a memorandum of understanding to address changing groundwater quality conditions at the site. Under the memorandum, PNM will continue hydrocarbon investigation of the site under the supervision of NMED and qualified costs of the work will be eligible for payment through the New Mexico Corrective Action Fund (“CAF”), which is administered by the NMED Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau. Among other things, money in the CAF is available to NMED to make payments to or on behalf of owners and operators for corrective action taken in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements to investigate, minimize, eliminate, or clean up a release. PNM’s work plan and cost estimates for specific groundwater investigation tasks were approved by the Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau. PNM submitted a monitoring plan consisting of a compilation of the data associated with the recent monitoring activities conducted under the CAF to NMED on October 3, 2016. PNM has completed all CAF-related work associated with the monitoring plan and has received NMED’s approval. Under the next phase, PNM’s contractor prepared a scope of work, which PNM and NMED have approved, for the installation of additional monitoring wells and additional sampling of certain existing monitoring wells at the site. Work is expected to commence in March 2018. Qualified costs of this work will be eligible for payment through the CAF.

PNM is unable to predict the outcome of these matters.
Coal Combustion Byproducts Waste Disposal
CCBs consisting of fly ash, bottom ash, and gypsum generated from coal combustion at SJGS are currently disposed of in the surface mine pits adjacent to the plant. SJGS does not operate any CCB impoundments or landfills. The NMMMD currently regulates placement of ash in the San Juan mine with federal oversight by the OSM. APS disposes of CCBs in ash ponds and dry storage areas at Four Corners.  Ash management at Four Corners is regulated by EPA and the New Mexico State Engineer’s Office. 
In June 2010, EPA published a proposed rule that included two options for waste designation of coal ash. One option was to regulate CCBs as a hazardous waste, which would allow EPA to create a comprehensive federal program for waste management and disposal of CCBs. The other option was to regulate CCBs as a non-hazardous waste, which would provide EPA with the authority to develop performance standards for waste management facilities handling CCBs and would be enforced primarily by state authorities or through citizen suits. Both options allow for continued use of CCBs in beneficial applications.

On December 19, 2014, EPA issued its coal ash rule, including a non-hazardous waste determination for coal ash. Coal ash will be regulated as a solid waste under Subtitle D of RCRA. The rule sets minimum criteria for existing and new CCB landfills and existing and new CCB surface impoundments and all lateral expansions consisting of location restrictions, design and operating criteria; groundwater monitoring and corrective action; closure requirements and post closure care; and recordkeeping, notification, and internet posting requirements. Because the rule is promulgated under Subtitle D, it does not require regulated facilities to

B - 97

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

obtain permits, does not require the states to adopt and implement the new rules, and is not within EPA’s enforcement jurisdiction. Instead, the rule’s compliance mechanism is for a state or citizen group to bring a RCRA citizen suit in federal district court against any facility that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the new requirements. EPA published the final CCB rule in the Federal Register on April 17, 2015, with an effective date of October 19, 2015. Based upon the requirements of the final rule, PNM conducted a CCB assessment at SJGS and made minor modifications at the plant to ensure that there are no facilities which would be considered impoundments or landfills under the rule. PNM does not expect the rule to have a material impact on operations, financial position, or cash flows.

As indicated above, CCBs at Four Corners are currently disposed of in ash ponds and dry storage areas. The CCB rule requires ongoing, phased groundwater monitoring. By October 17, 2017, utilities that own or operate CCB disposal units, such as those at Four Corners must have collected sufficient groundwater sampling data to initiate a detection monitoring program.  To the extent that certain threshold constituents are identified through this initial detection monitoring at levels above the CCB rule’s standards, the rule requires the initiation of an assessment monitoring program by April 15, 2018.  If this assessment monitoring program reveals concentrations of certain constituents above the CCB rule standards that trigger remedial obligations, a corrective measures evaluation must be completed by January 2019. Depending upon the results of such groundwater monitoring and data evaluations, Four Corners may be required to take corrective actions, the costs of which cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

Pursuant to a June 24, 2016 order by the DC Circuit in litigation by industry and environmental groups challenging EPA’s CCB regulations, EPA is required to complete a rulemaking proceeding by June 2019 to address specific technical issues related to the handling of CCBs.  EPA is not required to take final action approving the inclusion of boron, but EPA must propose and consider its inclusion.  Should EPA take final action adding boron to the list of groundwater constituents, corrective action may be required. Any resulting corrective action measures may increase costs of compliance with the CCB rule at coal-fired generating facilities.  At this time, PNM cannot predict when EPA will commence its rulemaking concerning boron or the eventual results of those proceedings.

On December 16, 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (the “WIIN Act”) was signed into law to address critical water infrastructure needs in the United States. The WIIN Act contains a number of provisions requiring EPA to modify the self-implementing provisions of the current CCB rules under Subtitle D. Among other things, the WIIN Act provides for the establishment of state and EPA permit programs for CCBs, provides flexibility for states to incorporate the EPA final rule for CCBs or develop other criteria that are at least as protective as the EPA’s final rule, and requires EPA to approve state permit programs within 180 days of submission by the state for approval. As a result, the CCB rule is no longer self-implementing and there will either be a state or federal permit program. Subject to Congressional appropriated funding, EPA will implement the permit program in states that choose not to implement a program. Until permit programs are in effect, EPA has authority to directly enforce the self-implementing CCB rule. For facilities located within the boundaries of Native American tribal reservations, such as the Navajo Nation where Four Corners is located, EPA is required to develop a federal permit program regardless of appropriated funds. EPA has yet to undertake rulemaking proceedings to implement the CCB provisions of the WIIN Act. There is no time line for establishing either state or federal permitting programs. APS recently filed a comment letter with EPA seeking clarification as to when and how EPA would be initiating permit proceedings for facilities on tribal reservations, including Four Corners. PNM is unable to predict when EPA will be issuing permits for Four Corners.

On September 13, 2017, EPA agreed to evaluate whether to revise the CCB regulations based upon utility industry petitions for EPA to reconsider the RCRA Subtitle D regulations for CCBs, which were premised in part on the provisions of the WIIN Act. In light of the WIIN Act and the petitions for rulemaking, the EPA is considering making additional changes to the CCB rule to provide flexibility to state programs consistent with the WIIN Act. With respect to ongoing litigation initiated by industry and environmental groups challenging the legality of the CCB regulations and pursuant to an order issued by the DC Circuit, EPA filed a status report on November 15, 2017 on the challenges to the CCB rule identifying provisions it intends to reconsider. On November 20, 2017, the DC Circuit heard oral arguments from industry groups, environmentalists, and EPA. EPA and the industry groups argued the court should postpone adjudication until EPA completes the reconsideration process for the affected provision. On December 20, 2017, a proposal to remand the CCB rule was transmitted to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review.

The CCB rule does not cover mine placement of coal ash. OSM is expected to publish a proposed rule covering mine placement in the future and will likely be influenced by EPA’s rule. PNM cannot predict the outcome of OSM’s proposed rulemaking

B - 98

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

regarding CCB regulation, including mine placement of CCBs, or whether OSM’s actions will have a material impact on PNM’s operations, financial position, or cash flows.  PNM would seek recovery from its ratepayers of all CCB costs that are ultimately incurred.
Other Commitments and Contingencies
Coal Supply

SJGS

The coal requirements for SJGS are supplied by SJCC. SJCC holds certain federal, state, and private coal leases. Through January 31, 2016, SJCC was a wholly-owned subsidiary of BHP and supplied processed coal for operation of SJGS under an underground coal sales agreement (“UG-CSA”) that was to expire on December 31, 2017. The parties to the UG-CSA were SJCC, PNM, and Tucson. Under the UG-CSA, SJCC was reimbursed for all costs for mining and delivering the coal, including an allocated portion of administrative costs, and received a return on its investment. In addition to coal delivered to meet the current needs of SJGS, PNM prepaid SJCC for certain coal mined but not yet delivered to the plant site. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, prepayments for coal (including amounts purchased from the existing SJGS participants discussed below), which are included in other current assets, amounted to $26.3 million and $48.7 million.

In conjunction with the activities undertaken to comply with the CAA for SJGS, as discussed above, PNM and the other owners of SJGS evaluated alternatives for the supply of coal to SJGS after the expiration of the UG-CSA. Following extensive negotiations among the SJGS participants, the owner of SJCC, and third-party miners, agreements were negotiated under which the ownership of SJCC would transfer to a new third-party miner and PNM would enter into a new coal supply agreement and agreements for CCB disposal and mine reclamation services with SJCC on or about January 1, 2016. Effectiveness of the agreements was dependent upon the closing of the purchase of SJCC by the new third-party miner and the finalization of the SJGS RA and other agreements, which along with regulatory approvals were necessary for the restructuring of ownership in SJGS to be consummated.

On July 1, 2015, PNM and Westmoreland Coal Company (“Westmoreland”) entered into a new coal supply agreement (“SJGS CSA”), pursuant to which Westmoreland is to supply all of the coal requirements of SJGS through June 30, 2022. PNM and Westmoreland also entered into agreements under which Westmoreland is to provide CCB disposal and mine reclamation services for SJGS. Contemporaneous with the entry into the coal-related agreements, Westmoreland entered into a stock purchase agreement (the “Stock Purchase Agreement”) on July 1, 2015 to acquire all of the capital stock of SJCC. In addition, PNM, Tucson, SJCC, and SJCC’s owner entered into an agreement to terminate the existing UG-CSA upon the effective date of the new SJGS CSA.

The SJGS CSA became effective as of 11:59 PM on January 31, 2016, upon the closing under the Stock Purchase Agreement. Upon closing under the Stock Purchase Agreement, Westmoreland’s rights and obligations under the SJGS CSA and the agreements for CCB disposal and mine reclamation services were assigned to SJCC. Westmoreland has guaranteed SJCC’s performance under the SJGS CSA.

Pricing under the SJGS CSA is primarily fixed, adjusted to reflect general inflation. The pricing structure takes into account that SJCC has been paid for coal mined but not delivered, as discussed above. PNM has the option to extend the SJGS CSA, subject to negotiation of the term of the extension and compensation to the miner. In order to extend, PNM must give written notice of that intent by July 1, 2018 and the parties must agree to the terms of the extension by January 1, 2019. However, as discussed in Note 17, PNM’s 2017 IRP shows that retirement of PNM’s SJGS capacity in 2022 would be cost-effective for customers. If retirement of SJGS is approved by the NMPRC, there will be no need to extend the SJGS CSA.

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


B - 99

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

In support of the closing under the Stock Purchase Agreement and to facilitate PNM customer savings, NM Capital, a wholly-owned subsidiary of PNMR, provided funding of $125.0 million (the “Westmoreland Loan”) to Westmoreland San Juan, LLC (“WSJ”), a ring-fenced, bankruptcy-remote, special-purpose entity that is a subsidiary of Westmoreland, to finance WSJ’s purchase of the stock of SJCC (including an insignificant affiliate) under the Stock Purchase Agreement. NM Capital was able to provide the $125.0 million financing to WSJ by first entering into a $125.0 million term loan agreement (the “BTMU Term Loan Agreement”) with BTMU, as lender and administrative agent. The BTMU Term Loan Agreement became effective as of February 1, 2016, matures on February 1, 2021, and bears interest at a rate based on LIBOR plus a customary spread. In connection with the BTMU Term Loan Agreement, PNMR, as parent company of NM Capital, has guaranteed NM Capital’s obligations to BTMU. The balance outstanding under the BTMU Term Loan Agreement was $50.1 million at December 31, 2017 and $45.1 million at February 20, 2018.

The Westmoreland Loan is a $125.0 million loan agreement among NM Capital, as lender, WSJ, as borrower, SJCC and its affiliate, as guarantors, BTMU, as administrative agent, and MUFG Union Bank, N.A., as depository bank. The Westmoreland Loan became effective as of February 1, 2016, and matures on February 1, 2021. The interest rate on the Westmoreland Loan escalates over time and was initially a rate of 7.25% plus LIBOR. Such rate was 9.25% plus LIBOR for the period from February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018 and is 12.25% plus LIBOR for the period from February 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019. WSJ must pay principal and interest quarterly to NM Capital in accordance with an amortization schedule. In addition, the Westmoreland Loan requires that all cash flows of WSJ, in excess of normal operating expenses, capital additions, and operating reserves, be utilized for principal and interest payments under the loan until it is fully repaid. At December 31, 2017, the amount outstanding under the Westmoreland Loan was $56.6 million. Reflecting the principal payment of $5.6 million that was paid when due on February 1, 2018, the balance of the Westmoreland Loan was $51.0 million as of February 20, 2018. The Westmoreland Loan is secured by the assets of and the equity interests in SJCC and its affiliate. The Westmoreland Loan also includes customary representations and warranties, covenants, and events of default. There are no prepayment penalties.

In connection with certain mining permits relating to the operation of the San Juan mine, SJCC is required to post reclamation bonds of $118.7 million with the NMMMD. In order to facilitate the posting of reclamation bonds by sureties on behalf of SJCC, PNMR entered into letter of credit arrangements with a bank under which letters of credit aggregating $30.3 million have been issued.
Four Corners
APS purchased all of Four Corners’ coal requirements from a supplier that was also a subsidiary of BHP and had a long-term lease of coal reserves with the Navajo Nation. That contract was to expire on July 6, 2016 with pricing determined using an escalating base-price. On December 30, 2013, ownership of the mine was transferred to NTEC, an entity owned by the Navajo Nation, and a new coal supply contract for Four Corners (the “Four Corners CSA”), beginning in July 2016 and expiring in 2031, was entered into with that entity.NTEC. The BHP subsidiary is to bewas retained as the mine manager and operator untilthrough December 2016. Bisti Fuels Company, LLC, a subsidiary of The North American Coal costs are anticipated to increaseCorporation, took over management and operation of the mine effective January 1, 2017. The average coal price per ton under the new contract was approximately 40%51% higher in the first year oftwelve months ended June 30, 2017 than in the new contract.twelve months ended June 30, 2016, excluding the disputed amounts discussed below. The contract provides for pricing adjustments over its term based on economic indices. PNM anticipates that its share of the increased costs will be recovered through its FPPAC.
Four Corners Coal Supply Arbitration – The owners of Four Corners are obligated to purchase a specified minimum amount of coal each contract year and to pay for any shortfall of coal that they fail to take delivery of below the minimum amount, except when caused by “uncontrollable forces” as defined in the Four Corners CSA.  On June 13, 2017, APS received a demand for arbitration from NTEC in connection with the Four Corners CSA.  NTEC originally sought a declaratory judgment to support its interpretation of a provision regarding uncontrollable forces in the agreement relating to the annual minimum quantities of coal to be purchased by the Four Corners owners. NTEC also alleged a shortfall in those purchases for the initial contract year, which ended June 30, 2017, of which PNM’s share is estimated to be approximately $6.5 million.  On September 20, 2017, NTEC amended its demand for arbitration removing the request for a declaratory judgment and is now only seeking relief for the alleged shortfall in purchases in the initial contract year. PNM anticipates that substantially all of any amount it ultimately is required to pay would be passed through to customers under PNM’s FPPAC. Although PNM cannot predict the timing or outcome of the arbitration, the outcome is not expected to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

B- 101B - 100

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

Coal Mine Reclamation
In conjunction with the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 to comply with the BART requirements of the CAA, an updated coal mine reclamation study was requested by the SJGS participants. In 2013, PNM updated its study of the final reclamation costs for both the surface mines that previously provided coal to SJGS and the current underground mine providing coal and revised its estimates of the final reclamation costs. This estimate reflectsreflected that, with the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 described above, the mine providing coal to SJGS willwould continue to operate through 2053, the anticipated life of SJGS. The 2013 coal mine reclamation study indicatesindicated reclamation costs havehad increased, including significant increases due to the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3, which would reduce the amount of CCBs generated over the remaining life of SJGS and result in a significant increase in the amount of fill dirt required to remediate the underground mine area thereby increasing the overall reclamation costs. As discussed under Coal Combustion Byproducts Waste Disposal above, SJGS currently disposes of CCBs from the plant in the surface mine pits adjacent to the plant.

In 2015, PNM updated its final reclamation costs estimates to reflect the terms of the new reclamation services agreement with Westmoreland, discussed above, and changes resulting from the approval of the 2015 SJCC Mine Permit Plan. Consistent with the 2013 reclamation study, the 2015 final reclamation cost estimate reflects the proposed shutdown of SJGS Units 2 and 3 and operation of mine through 2053. The 2015 reclamation cost study indicatesestimate reflected that the scope and pricing structure of the reclamation service agreement with Westmoreland would significantly increase reclamation costs. In addition, design plan changes, updated regulatory expectation,expectations, and common mine reclamation practices incorporated into the 2015 SJCC Mine Permit reflect an increase in the 2015 reclamation cost estimate. The impacts of these increases, amounting to $16.5 million, were recorded at December 31, 2015 and are includedwere reflected in regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings (Loss).Earnings.
Upon effectiveness of the SJGS CSA and the SJGS RA, PNM, on behalf of the SJGS owners, coordinated a more detailed coal mine reclamation cost study, which was completed in the third quarter of 2016. To complete the study, PNM was provided access to the mine site and obtained supporting data from Westmoreland, allowing for the 2015 study to be refined with a more extensive engineering analysis. This reclamation cost estimate reflected the terms of the new reclamation services agreement with Westmoreland and continuation of mining operations through 2053. The study indicated an increase in the reclamation cost estimate. PNM’s $4.5 million share of the increase was recorded in 2016 and is reflected in regulatory disallowances and restructuring costs in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. The current estimate for decommissioning the mine serving Four Corners mine reflects the operation of the mine through 2031, the term of the new agreement for coal supply.

Based on the 20152016 estimates and PNM’s current ownership share of SJGS, PNM’s remaining payments for mine reclamation, in future dollars, are estimated to be $98.2100.4 million for the surface mines at both SJGS and Four Corners and $118.9127.1 million for the underground mine at SJGS as of December 31, 2015.2017. At December 31, 20152017 and 2014,2016, liabilities, in current dollars, of $38.841.4 million and $25.741.0 million for surface mine reclamation and $11.414.7 million and $8.614.0 million for underground mine reclamation were recorded in other deferred credits.
On June 1, 2012,
As discussed in Note 17, PNM filed its 2017 IRP on July 3, 2017. The conclusions contained in the 2017 IRP indicate that it would be cost beneficial to PNM’s customers for PNM to retire its SJGS capacity in 2022 and for PNM to exit its ownership interest in Four Corners in 2031. The 2017 IRP is not a final determination of PNM’s future generation portfolio. Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS capacity and exiting Four Corners would require NMPRC approval of abandonment filings, which PNM would make at appropriate times in the future. If the NMPRC orders the abandonment of those facilities, PNM would be required to remeasure its liability for coal mine reclamation to reflect that reclamation activities would occur sooner than currently anticipated. The remeasurement would likely result in a significant increase in PNM’s liability for SJGS mine reclamation due to a further increase in the amount of fill dirt required to remediate the mine areas thereby increasing the overall reclamation costs. PNM would record an additional amount when it is determined that the increase to the liability is probable and can be reasonably estimated, which would be dependent on receiving the NMPRC approvals indicated above. The amount of the increase in the liability would depend on the timing of those approvals and other regulatory actions, as well estimates made at that time of the costs to perform the future reclamation activities, as well as the then current inflation and discount rates. Preliminary calculations indicate the increase in PNM’s liability for December 31, 2017 SJGS mine reclamation would be approximately $35 million for the surface mine and $5 million for the underground mine. PNM would record a regulatory asset for amounts recoverable from ratepayers under existing or future orders of the NMPRC and amounts not recoverable would be expensed. PNM cannot predict what actions the NMPRC might take.

B - 101

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

Under the terms of the SJGS CSA, PNM and the other SJGS owners are obligated to compensate SJCC for all reclamation costs associated with the supply of coal from the San Juan mine. The SJGS owners entered into a reclamation trust funds agreement to provide funding to compensate SJCC for post-term reclamation obligations under the UG-CSA.UGCSA. As part of the restructuring of SJGS ownership (see SJGS Ownership Restructuring Matters above), the SJGS owners and PNMR Development negotiated the terms of an amended agreement to fund post-term reclamation obligations under the SJGS CSA. The trust funds agreement requires each owner to enter into an individual trust agreement with a financial institution as trustee, create an irrevocable Reclamation Trust,reclamation trust, and periodically deposit fundingfunds into the Reclamation Trustreclamation trust for the owner’s share of the mine reclamation obligation. Deposits, which are based on funding curves, must be made on an annual basis. As part of the restructuring of SJGS ownership discussed above, the SJGS participants agreed to adjusted interim trust funding levels. PNM funded $5.8 million in 2017, $7.0 million in 2016, and $4.3 million in 2015, $1.0 million in 2014, and $0.3 million in 2013. As of2015. Based on PNM’s reclamation trust fund balance at December 31, 2015,2017, the current funding curves indicate PNM’s required contributions to its Reclamation Trustreclamation trust fund would be $4.9$8.3 million in 2016 and $5.42018, $8.7 million in 2017 based on the existing trust fund balance.2019, and $9.2 million in 2020.

Under the coal supply agreement for Four Corners CSA, which becomesbecame effective on July 7, 2016, PNM is required to fund its ownership share of estimated final reclamation costs in thirteen annual installments, beginning on August 1, 2016, into an irrevocable escrow account solely dedicated to the final reclamation cost of the surface mine at Four Corners. PNM’s anticipated funding level isPNM contributed $2.3 million in 2017 and $1.9 million, $2.0 million, and $2.1 million in 2016 2017,to the escrow account and 2018.anticipates providing additional funding of $2.3 million, $2.3 million, and $2.3 million in 2018, 2019, and 2020.
PNM collects a provision for surface and underground mine reclamation costs in its rates. The NMPRC has capped the amount that can be collected from ratepayersretail customers for final reclamation of the surface mines at $100.0 million. Previously, PNM recorded a regulatory asset for the $100.0 million and recovers the amortization of this regulatory asset in rates. If future estimates increase the liability for surface mine reclamation, the excess would be expensed at that time. The reclamation amounts discussed above reflect PNM’s estimates of its share of the revised costs. Regulatory determinations made by the NMPRC may also affect the impact on PNM. PNM is currently unable to determine the outcome of these matters or the range of possible impacts.


B- 102

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

Continuous Highwall Mining Royalty Rate

In August 2013, the DOI Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) issued a proposed rulemaking that would retroactively apply the surface mining royalty rate of 12.5% to continuous highwall mining (“CHM”).  Comments regarding the rulemaking were due on October 11, 2013 and PNM submitted comments in opposition to the proposed rule. There is no legal deadline for adoption of the final rule although the BLM has indicated that final action on the proposed rule is scheduled for April 2016.rule.

SJCC utilized the CHM technique from 2000 to 2003 and, with the approval of the Farmington, New Mexico Field Office of BLM to reclassify the final highwall as underground reserves, applied the 8.0% underground mining royalty rate to coal mined using CHM and sold to SJGS.  In March 2001, SJCC learned that the DOI Minerals Management Service (“MMS”) disagreed with the application of the underground royalty rate to CHM.  In August 2006, SJCC and MMS entered into a settlementan agreement tolling the statute of limitations on any administrative action to recover unpaid royalties until BLM issued a final, non-appealable determination as to the proper rate for CHM-mined coal.  The proposed BLM rulemaking has the potential to terminate the tolling provision of the settlement agreement, and underpaid royalties of approximately $5 million for SJGS would become due if the proposed BLM rule is adopted as proposed.  PNM’s share of any amount that is ultimately paid would be approximately 46.3%, none of which would be passed through PNM’s FPPAC. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
SJCC Arbitration
The coal supply agreement for SJGS provides that the participants in SJGS have the right to audit the costs billed by SJCC. The audit for the period from 2006 through 2009 resulted in disagreements between the SJGS participants and SJCC and certain issues were submitted to a panel for binding arbitration. The issues were: 1) whether the SJGS participants owed SJCC unbilled mining costs of $5.2 million or whether SJCC owed the SJGS participants overbilled mining costs of $1.1 million, and 2) whether SJCC billed the SJGS participants $13.9 million as mining costs that SJCC should have considered to be capital costs, which were not billable under the mining contract.  PNM’s share of amounts subject to the arbitration was approximately 46.3%. A hearing before the arbitration panel on the remaining issues was held in May 2014. The arbitration panel found in favor of SJCC on both issues. Of PNM’s share of the costs, approximately 33% of the first issue was passed through PNM’s FPPAC and the rest impacted earnings in 2014. The amounts related to the second issue were recorded when billed in prior periods and had no impact in 2014.
Four Corners Severance Tax Assessment

On May 23, 2013, the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (“NMTRD”) issued a notice of assessment for coal severance surtax, penalty, and interest totaling approximately $30 million related to coal supplied under the coal supply agreement for Four Corners. For procedural reasons, on behalf of the Four Corners co-owners, including PNM, the coal supplier made a partial payment of the assessment and immediately filed a refund claim with respect to that partial payment in August 2013. NMTRD denied the refund claim. On December 19, 2013, the coal supplier and APS, on its own behalf and as operating agent for Four Corners, filed a complaint in the New Mexico District Court contesting both the validity of the assessment and the refund claim denial. On June 30, 2015, the court ruled that the assessment was not valid and further ruled that APS and the other Four Corners co-owners receive a refund of all of the contested amounts previously paid under the applicable tax statute. NMTRD filed a notice of appeal with the New Mexico Court of Appeals on August 31, 2015. The parties are engaged in settlement discussions. PNM does not expect the outcome to have a material impact.


PVNGS Liability and Insurance Matters
Public liability for incidents at nuclear power plants is governed by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which limits the liability of nuclear reactor owners to the amount of insurance available from both privatecommercial sources and an industryindustry-wide retrospective payment plan. In accordance with this act, the PVNGS participants have insurance forare insured against public liability exposure for a nuclear incident totalingup to $13.513.4 billion per occurrence. CommercialPVNGS maintains the maximum available nuclear liability insurance carriers providein the amount of $375450 million and, which is provided by American Nuclear Insurers. The remaining $13.113.0 billion is provided through a mandatory industry-wide retrospective assessment program. If losses at any nuclear power plant covered by the program exceed the accumulated funds, PNM could be assessed retrospective premium adjustments. Based on PNM’s 10.2% interest in each of the three PVNGS units, PNM’s maximum potential retrospective premium assessment per incident for all three units is $38.9 million, with a maximum annual payment limitation of $5.8 million, to be adjusted periodically for inflation.


B- 103B - 102

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015


The PVNGS participants maintain “all risk” (including nuclear hazards) insurance for damage to, and decontamination of, property at PVNGS in the aggregate amount of $2.75 billion, a substantial portion of which must first be applied to stabilization and decontamination. These coverages are provided by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (“NEIL”). Effective April 1, 2014,The primary policy offered by NEIL contains a sublimit of $2.25 billion for non-nuclear property damage losses has been enacted to the primary policy offered by NEIL.damage. If NEIL’s losses in any policy year exceed accumulated funds, PNM is subject to retrospective premium assessmentsadjustments of $5.4 million for each retrospective premium assessment declared by NEIL’s Board of Directors.Directors due to losses. The insurance coverages discussed in this and the previous paragraph are subject to certain policy conditions, sublimits, and exclusions.
Natural Gas Supply
 
PNM procures gas supplies for its power plants from third-party sources and contracts with third party transportation providers.

Water Supply
Because of New Mexico’s arid climate and periodic drought conditions, there is concern in New Mexico about the use of water, including that used for power generation. Although PNM does not believe that its operations will be materially affected by drought conditions at this time, it cannot forecast long-term weather patterns. Public policy, local, state and federal regulations, and litigation regarding water could also impact PNM operations. To help mitigate these risks, PNM has secured permanent groundwater rights for the existing plants at Reeves Station, Rio Bravo, Afton, Luna, Lordsburg, and La Luz. Water availability is not an issue for these plants at this time. However, prolonged drought, ESA activities, and a federal lawsuit by the State of Texas (suing the State of New Mexico over water deliveries) could pose a threat of reduced water availability for these plants.
For SJGS and Four Corners, and related mines PNM and APS have secured supplemental water supplies to accommodate the possibility of inadequate precipitation in coming years. To further mitigate the impacts of severe drought, PNM and APS have entered into agreementsnegotiated an agreement with the more senior water rights holders (tribes, municipalities, and agricultural interests) in the San Juan basin to mutually share the impacts of water shortages with tribes and other water users in the San Juan basin. The agreements spreadagreement to share shortages in 2017 through 2020 has been negotiated and awaits endorsement by the burden of shortages over all water users inparties and the basin instead of just having the more junior water rights holders (like APS and PNM) bear the entire impact of shortages. The agreements have been extended through 2016.New Mexico State Engineer.
In April 2010, APS signed an agreement on behalf of the PVNGS participants with five cities to provide cooling water essential to power production at PVNGS for forty40 years.
PVNGS Water Supply Litigation
In 1986, an action commenced regarding the rights of APS and the other PVNGS participants to the use of groundwater and effluent at PVNGS. APS filed claims that dispute the court’s jurisdiction over PVNGS’ groundwater rights and their contractual rights to effluent relating to PVNGS and, alternatively, seek confirmation of those rights. In 1999, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a decision finding that certain groundwater rights may be available to the federal government and Indian tribes. In addition, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a decision in 2000 affirming the lower court’s criteria for resolving groundwater claims. Litigation on these issues has continued in the trial court. No trial dates have been set in these matters. PNM does not expect that this litigation will have a material impact on its results of operation, financial position, or cash flows.
San Juan River Adjudication
In 1975, the State of New Mexico filed an action in New Mexico District Court to adjudicate all water rights in the San Juan River Stream System, including water used at Four Corners and SJGS. PNM was made a defendant in the litigation in 1976. In March 2009, then President Obama signed legislation confirming a 2005 settlement with the Navajo Nation. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Navajo Nation’s water rights would be settled and finally determined by entry by the court of two proposed adjudication decrees.  The court issued an order in August 2013 finding that no evidentiary hearing was warranted in the Navajo Nation proceeding and, on November 1, 2013, issued a Partial Final Judgment and Decree of the Water Rights of the Navajo Nation approving the proposed settlement with the Navajo Nation. Several parties filed a joint motion for a new trial, which was denied by the court. A number of parties subsequently appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. PNM has entered its appearance in the appellate case. No hearing datesThe issues have been set at this time.fully briefed and the matter is pending with the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Adjudication of non-Indian water rights continues during the pendency of the appeal of the Navajo Nation settlement.

B- 104B - 103

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

PNM is participating in this proceeding since PNM’s water rights in the San Juan Basin may be affected by the rights recognized in the settlement agreement as being owned byand adjudicated to the Navajo Nation, which comprise a significant portion of water available from sources on the San Juan River and in the San Juan Basin.Basin and which have priority in times of shortages. PNM is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or estimate the amount or range of potential loss and cannot determine the effect, if any, of any water rights adjudication on the present arrangements for water at SJGS and Four Corners. Final resolution of the case cannot be expected for several years. An agreement reached with the Navajo Nation in 1985, however, provides that if Four Corners loses a portion of its rights in the adjudication, the Navajo Nation will provide, for an agreed upon cost, sufficient water from its allocation to offset the loss.
Rights-of-Way Matter

On January 28, 2014, the County Commission of Bernalillo County, New Mexico passed an ordinance requiring utilities to enter into a use agreement and pay a yet-to-be-determined fee as a condition to installing, maintaining, and operating facilities on county rights-of-way. The fee is purported to compensate the county for costs of administering and maintaining andthe rights-of-way, as well as for capital improvements to the rights-of-way.improvements. On February 27, 2014, PNM and other utilities filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico challenging the validity of the ordinance. The court denied the utilities’ motion for judgment. The court further granted the County’s motion to dismiss the state law claims. The utilities filed an amended complaint reflecting the two federal claims remaining before the federal court. The utilities also filed a complaint in Bernalillo County, New Mexico District Court reflecting the state law counts dismissed by the federal court. In subsequent briefing in federal court, the County filed a motion for judgment on one of the utilities’ claims, which was granted by the court, leaving a claim regarding telecommunications service as the remaining federal claim. ThisOn January 4, 2016, the utilities filed an Application for Interlocutory Appeal from the state court, which was denied. On March 28, 2017, the utilities filed a Writ of Certiorari with the NM Supreme Court, which was denied. The matter is ongoingwill proceed in state court.New Mexico District Court. The utilities and Bernalillo County reached a standstill agreement whereby the County would not take any enforcement action against the utilities pursuant to the ordinance during the pendency of the litigation, but not including any period for appeal of a judgment, or upon 30 days written notice by either the County or the utilities of their intention to terminate the agreement.  If the challenges to the ordinance are unsuccessful, PNM believes any fees paid pursuant to the ordinance would be considered franchise fees and would be recoverable from customers. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or its impact on PNM’s operations.
Complaint Against Southwestern Public Service Company
In September 2005, PNM filed a complaint under the Federal Power Act against SPS alleging SPS overcharged PNM for deliveries of energy through its fuel cost adjustment clause practices and that rates for sales to PNM were excessive. PNM also intervened in a similar proceeding brought by other SPS customers raising similar arguments relating to SPS’ fuel cost adjustment clause practices and issues relating to demand cost allocation (the “Golden Spread Proceeding”). In addition, PNM intervened in a proceeding filed by SPS to revise its rates for sales to PNM (“SPS 2006 Rate Proceeding”). There have been extensive proceedings atPNM. On October 29, 2015, FERC on these matters, as well as negotiations among the parties. On August 28, 2015, SPS filed settlement documentation with FERC, includingapproved a settlement agreement to which PNM was a party that would resolveresolving all outstanding fuel cost adjustment and rate issues between SPS and PNM. FERC approved the settlement on October 29, 2015. Under the settlement, SPS paid PNM $4.2 million, including interest through December 31, 2014.million. Of this amount, $2.6 million was passed back to PNM’s customers through its FPPAC.
Navajo Nation Allottee Matters
A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities in February 2009 in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation and allege that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of rights-of-way or both.  In March 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the plaintiffs’ case be dismissed. The court did not grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking redress in federal court.  In May 2010, plaintiffs filed a Noticenotice of Appealappeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”), which was denied by the BIA Regional Director. In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional Director’s decision to the DOI, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior Board of Indian Appeals. Following briefing on the merits, on August 20, 2013, that board issued a decision upholding the Regional Director’s decision that the allottees had failed to perfect their appeals, and dismissed the allottees’ appeals, without prejudice.  The allottees have not refiled their appeals. Although this matter was dismissed without prejudice, PNM considers the matter concluded. However, PNM continues to monitor this matter in order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way.


B- 105B - 104

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

In a separate matter, in September 2012, 43 landowners claiming to be Navajo allottees filed a notice of appeal with the BIA appealing a March 2011 decision of the BIA Regional Director regarding renewal of a right-of-way for a PNM transmission line. The allottees, many of whom are also allottees in the above matter, generally allege that they were not paid fair market value for the right-of-way, that they were denied the opportunity to make a showing as to their view of fair market value, and thus denied due process. On January 6, 2014, PNM received notice that the BIA, Navajo Region, requested a review of an appraisal report on 58 allotment parcels. After review, the BIA concluded it would continue to rely on the values of the original appraisal. On March 27, 2014, while this matter was stayed, the allottees filed a motion to dismiss their appeal with prejudice.  On April 2, 2014, the allottees’ appeal was dismissed with prejudice. Subsequent to the dismissal, PNM received a letter from counsel on behalf of what appears to be a subset of the 43 landowner allottees involved in the appeal, notifying PNM that the specified allottees were revoking their consents for renewal of right of way on six specific allotments.  On January 22, 2015, PNM received a letter from the BIA Regional Director identifying ten allotments with rights-of-way renewals that were previously contested.  The letter indicated that the renewals were not approved by the BIA because the previous consent obtained by PNM was later revoked, prior to BIA approval, by the majority owners of the allotments.  It is the BIA Regional Director’s position that PNM must re-obtain consent from these landowners.  On July 13, 2015, PNM filed a condemnation action in the United StatesNM District Court for the District of New Mexico regarding the approximately 15.49 acres of land at issue. On December 2,1, 2015, the court ruled that PNM could not condemn 2two of the 5five allotments at issue based on the Navajo Nation’s fractional interest in the land.  PNM has movedfiled a motion for reconsideration of this ruling which was denied. On March 31, 2016, the Tenth Circuit granted PNM’s petition to appeal the December 1, 2015 ruling.
On September 18, 2015, the allottees filed a separate complaint against PNM for federal trespass. Both matters have been consolidated. On June 27, 2016, PNM filed its opening brief in the Tenth Circuit. Amicus briefs were filed in support of PNM’s position. On October 5, 2016, the United States, the Navajo Nation, and individual allottees filed their response briefs. After the response briefs were filed, other entities requested leave to file amicus briefs addressing arguments raised in the United States’ response brief. Oral argument before the Tenth Circuit was heard on January 17, 2017. On May 26, 2017, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. On July 8, 2017, PNM filed a Motion for Reconsideration en banc with the Tenth Circuit. On July 21, 2017, the court denied PNM’s Motion for Reconsideration. On July 26, 2017, PNM filed a motion to stay implementation of the court’s decision, which was denied. On September 11, 2017, PNM filed an Application for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the US Supreme Court. PNM’s application for an extension of time to November 20, 2017 was granted. The NM District Court has stayed the case until May 15, 2018 based on the Navajo Nation’s acquisition of interests in two additional allotments and the unresolved ownership of the fifth allotment due to the owner’s death. On November 20, 2017, PNM filed its Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the US Supreme Court. On December 22, 2017, amicus briefs supporting PNM’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari were filed with the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court extended the United States’ response period to March 23, 2018.
PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

Sales Tax Audits

In November 2011, PNMR completed the sale of its retail electric provider, which operated in Texas under the name First Choice Power (“First Choice”). Under the sale agreement, PNMR is contractually obligated for First Choice’s taxes relating to periods prior to the sale.

The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (“Comptroller”) has initiated audits of First Choice’s sales and use tax filings and miscellaneous gross receipts tax filings for periods prior to the sale. During the course of the audits, PNMR accrued an immaterial liability for items identified in the audits for which PNMR believed an unfavorable resolution was probable. The Comptroller has issued notifications of audit results indicating additional tax due of $5.0 million, plus penalties and interest. The primary issue in dispute is the disallowance by the auditor of the tax benefits of bad debt charge-offs and billing credits. On behalf of First Choice, PNMR filed requests for redetermination for both audits.

PNMR has engaged in continued discussions with the Comptroller, as well as supplying additional documentation in support of PNMR’s positions. If PNMR and the Comptroller do not reach agreement, this matter will go to hearing with the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings. Although PNMR believes its positions are correct, it is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.


B - 105

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

(17)Regulatory and Rate Matters

The Company is involved in various regulatory matters, some of which contain contingencies that are subject to the same uncertainties as those described in Note 16.
PNM

New Mexico General Rate Cases

New Mexico 2015 General Rate Case(“NM 2015 Rate Case”)

On December 11, 2014, PNM filed an application for revision of electric retail rates based upon a calendar year 2016 future test year (“FTY”) period. The application proposed a revenue increase of $107.4 million, effective January 1, 2016. Several parties filed briefs, which alleged that PNM’s application was incomplete and challenged the distributed generation charge, as well as other aspects of PNM’s filing. On April 17, 2015, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued an Initial Recommended Decision to the NMPRC recommending that the NMPRC find PNM’s application incomplete and reject it on the grounds that it doesdid not comply with the FTY rule. The Hearing Examiner cited procedural defects in the filing, including a lack of fully functional electronic files and appropriate justification of certain costs in the future test year period. PNM filed exceptions arguing that PNM substantively met the filing requirements of the applicable New Mexico Statutes and NMPRC Rules, the Initial Recommended Decision established an unreasonable standard for FTY filing requirements, and the recommendations placing limits on the timing of the test period relative to the base period effectively nullified the FTY statute. On May 13, 2015, the NMPRC voted to accept the Initial Recommended Decision regarding the completeness of PNM’s application and dismissed PNM’s application.

On August 27, 2015, PNM filed a new application with the NMPRC for a general increase in retail electric rates. The application proposesproposed a revenue increase of $123.5 million, including base fuelnon-fuel revenues of $123.5$121.7 million. PNM’s new application iswas based on a FTY period beginning October 1, 2015, which meetsmet the NMPRC’s May 2015 interpretation of the FTY statute discussed below. Thebelow, and proposed a ROE isof 10.5%. Similar to the 2014 filing, theThe primary drivers of PNM’s identified revenue deficiency arewere the cost of infrastructure investments, and the recovery of those investment dollars, including depreciation expense based on an updated depreciation study, and declinesa decline in forecasted energy sales as a result of PNM’s successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors. The new application includesincluded several proposed changes toin rate design to establish fair and equitable pricing across rate classes and to better align cost recovery with cost causation. Specific rate design proposals include increasedincluded higher customer and demand charges, a revenue decoupling pilot program applicable to residential and small powercommercial customers, a re-allocation of revenue among PNM’s customer classes, a new economic development rate, and continuation of PNM’s renewable energy rider. PNM requested that the proposed new rates become effective beginning in July 2016. The NMPRC’s designated Hearing Examiner has established a procedural schedule that anticipates aOn March 2, 2016, the NMPRC required PNM to file supplemental testimony regarding the treatment of renewable energy in PNM’s FPPAC. See Renewable Portfolio Standard below. A public hearing on the proposed new rates will begin on March 14,was held in April 2016. Subsequent to this hearing, the NMPRC ordered PNM is unable to predictfile additional testimony regarding PNM’s interests in PVNGS, including the outcome64.1 MW of this matter.PVNGS Unit 2 that PNM repurchased in January 2016, pursuant to the terms of the initial sales-leaseback transactions (Note 7). A subsequent public hearing was held in June 2016. After the June hearing, PNM and other parties were ordered to file supplemental briefs and to provide final recommended revenue requirements that incorporated fuel savings that PNM implemented effective January 1, 2016 from PNM’s SJGS coal supply agreement (“SJGS CSA”).  PNM’s filing indicated that recovery for fuel related costs would be reduced by approximately $42.9 million reflecting the current SJGS CSA (Note 16), which also reduced the request for base non-fuel related revenues by $0.2 million to $121.5 million.

On August 4, 2016, the Hearing Examiner in the case issued a recommended decision (the “August 2016 RD”).  The August 2016 RD proposed an increase in non-fuel revenues of $41.3 million compared to the $121.5 million increase requested by PNM. Major components of the difference in the increase in non-fuel revenues proposed in the August 2016 RD, included:

A ROE of 9.575% compared to the 10.5% requested by PNM
Disallowing recovery of the entire $163.3 million purchase price for the January 15, 2016 purchases of the assets underlying three leases of portions of PVNGS Unit 2 (Note 7); the August 2016 RD proposed that power from the previously leased assets, aggregating 64.1 MW of capacity, be dedicated to serving New Mexico retail customers with those customers being charged for the costs of fuel and operating and maintenance expenses (other than property taxes, which were $0.8 million per year at that time), but the customers would not bear any capital or depreciation costs other than those related to improvements made after the date of the original leases
Disallowing recovery from retail customers of the rent expense, which aggregates $18.1 million per year, under the four leases of capacity in PVNGS Unit 1 that were extended for eight years beginning January 15, 2015 and the one lease of

B-B - 106

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 that was extended for eight years beginning January 15, 2016 (Note 7) and related property taxes, which were $1.5 million per year at that time; the August 2016 RD proposed that power from the leased assets, aggregating 114.6 MW of capacity, be dedicated to serving New Mexico retail customers with those customers being charged for the costs of fuel and operating and maintenance expense, except that customers would not bear rental costs or property taxes
Disallowing recovery of the costs of converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT, which is required by the NSR permit for SJGS, (Note 16); PNM’s share of the costs of installing the BDT equipment was $52.3 million of which $40.0 million was included in rate base in PNM’s rate request
Disallowing recovery of $4.5 million of amounts recorded as regulatory assets and deferred charges

The August 2016 RD recommended that the NMPRC find PNM was imprudent in the actions taken to purchase the previously leased 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, extending the leases for 114.6 MW of capacity of PVNGS Units 1 and 2, and installing the BDT equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4. The August 2016 RD also proposed that all fuel costs be removed from base rates and be recovered through the FPPAC. The August 2016 RD would credit retail customers with 100% of the New Mexico jurisdictional portion of revenues from “refined coal” (a third-party pre-treatment process) at SJGS. In addition, the August 2016 RD would remove recovery of the costs of power obtained from New Mexico Wind from the FPPAC and include recovery of those costs through PNM’s renewable energy rider discussed below. The August 2016 RD recommended continuation of the renewable energy rider and certain aspects of PNM’s proposals regarding rate design, but would not approve certain other rate design proposals or PNM’s request for a revenue decoupling pilot program. The August 2016 RD proposed approving PNM’s proposals for revised depreciation rates (except the August 2016 RD would require depreciation on Four Corners be calculated based on a 2041 life rather than the 2031 life proposed by PNM), the inclusion of construction work in progress in rate base, and ratemaking treatment of the “prepaid pension asset.” The August 2016 RD did not preclude PNM from supporting the prudence of the PVNGS purchases and lease renewals in its next general rate case and seeking recovery of those costs. PNM disagreed with many of the key conclusions reached by the Hearing Examiner in the August 2016 RD and filed exceptions to defend its prudent utility investments. Other parties also filed exceptions to the August 2016 RD.   

On September 28, 2016, the NMPRC issued an order that authorized PNM to implement an increase in non-fuel rates of $61.2 million, effective for bills sent to customers after September 30, 2016. The order generally approved the August 2016 RD, but with certain significant modifications. The modifications to the August 2016 RD included:

Inclusion of the January 2016 purchase of the assets underlying three leases of capacity, aggregating 64.1 MW, of PVNGS Unit 2 at an initial rate base value of $83.7 million; and disallowance of the recovery of the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW was being leased by PNM, which aggregated $43.8 million when the order was issued
Full recovery of the rent expense and property taxes associated with the extended leases for capacity, aggregating 114.6 MW, in Palo Verde Units 1 and 2
Disallowance of the recovery of any future contributions for PVNGS decommissioning costs related to the 64.1 MW of capacity purchased in January 2016 and the 114.6 MW of capacity under the extended leases
Recovery of assumed operating and maintenance expense savings of $0.3 million annually related to BDT

On September 30, 2016, PNM filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court regarding the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case. Subsequently, NEE, NMIEC, and ABCWUA filed notices of cross-appeal to PNM’s appeal. On October 26, 2016, PNM filed a statement of issues related to its appeal with the NM Supreme Court, which stated PNM is appealing the NMPRC’s determination that PNM was imprudent in the actions taken to purchase the previously leased 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2, extending the leases for 114.6 MW of capacity of PVNGS Units 1 and 2, and installing BDT equipment on SJGS Units 1 and 4. Specifically, PNM’s statement indicated it is appealing the following elements of the NMPRC’s order:

Disallowance of recovery of the full purchase price, representing fair market value, of the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 purchased in January 2016
Disallowance of the recovery of the undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW of capacity was leased by PNM
Disallowance of recovery of future contributions for PVNGS decommissioning attributable to the 64.1 MW of purchased capacity and the 114.6 MW of capacity under the extended leases
Disallowance of recovery of the costs of converting SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT

B - 107

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015


The issues that are being appealed by the various cross-appellants include:

The NMPRC allowing PNM to recover the costs of the lease extensions for the 114.6 MW of PVNGS Units 1 and 2 and any of the purchase price for the 64.1 MW in PVNGS Unit 2
The NMPRC allowing PNM to recover the costs incurred under the new coal supply contract for Four Corners
The revised method to collect PNM’s fuel and purchased power costs under the FPPAC
The final rate design
The NMPRC allowing PNM to include the “prepaid pension asset” in rate base

NEE subsequently filed a motion for a partial stay of the order at the NM Supreme Court. This motion was denied. The NM Supreme Court stated that the court’s intent was to request that PNM reimburse ratepayers for any amount overcharged should the cross-appellants prevail on the merits.

On February 17, 2017, PNM filed its Brief in Chief, and pursuant to the court’s rules, the briefing schedule was completed on July 21, 2017. Oral argument at the NM Supreme Court was held on October 30, 2017. Although appeals of regulatory actions of the NMPRC have a priority at the NM Supreme Court under New Mexico law, there is no required time frame for the court to act on the appeals.

GAAP requires that a loss is to be recognized when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. When there is a range of the amount of the probable loss, the minimum amount of the range is to be accrued unless an amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. As of September 30, 2016, PNM evaluated the accounting consequences of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case and the likelihood of being successful on the issues it is appealing in the NM Supreme Court as required under GAAP. The evaluation indicated it is reasonably possible that PNM will be successful on the issues it is appealing. If the NM Supreme Court rules in PNM’s favor on some or all of the issues, those issues would be remanded back to the NMPRC for further action. At that time, PNM estimated that it would take a minimum of 15 months, from the date PNM filed its appeal, for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues. During such time, the rates specified in the order would remain in effect. PNM concluded that a range of probable loss resulted from the NMPRC order in the NM 2015 Rate Case; that the minimum amount of loss was 15 months of capital cost recovery that the order disallowed for PNM’s investments in the PVNGS Unit 2 purchases, PVNGS Unit 2 capitalized improvements, and BDT; and that no amount within the range of possible loss was a better estimate than any other amount. Accordingly, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $6.8 million at September 30, 2016 for the capital costs that will not be covered during that 15 month appeal period. In addition, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance for $4.5 million of costs recorded as regulatory assets and deferred charges (which the order disallowed and which PNM did not challenge in its appeal) since PNM could no longer assert that those assets were probable of being recovered through the ratemaking process.

The NMPRC’s order approved PNM’s request to record a regulatory asset to recover a 2014 impairment of PNM’s New Mexico net operating loss carryforward resulting from an extension of the income tax provision for fifty percent bonus depreciation. The impact, net of federal income taxes, amounting to $2.1 million was reflected as a reduction of income tax expense on the Consolidated Statement of Earnings.

PNM also evaluated the accounting consequences of the issues that are being appealed by the cross-appellants. PNM does not believe the issues raised in the cross-appeals have substantial merit. Accordingly, PNM does not believe that the likelihood of the cross-appeals being successful is probable and, 2013therefore, no loss was recorded in 2016 related to the issues subject to the cross-appeals.

Since the NM Supreme Court did not issue a decision on the appeals related to the NM 2015 Rate Case by December 31, 2017, which was 15 months from the date of the NMPRC’s order in that case, PNM has reevaluated the accounting consequences of the order in the NM 2015 Rate Case. PNM continues to believe that it is reasonably possible that PNM will be successful on the issues it is appealing and that it is not probable the cross appeals will be successful. However, based on the proceedings to date in the appeal process and other actions by the NM Supreme Court, PNM now estimates that it will take an additional seven months from December 31, 2017 for the NM Supreme Court to issue a decision and any remanded issues to be addressed by the NMPRC. Accordingly, PNM recorded an additional loss of $3.1 million at December 31, 2017, representing an additional disallowance of seven months of capital cost recovery that the order disallowed. Further losses will be recorded if the currently

B - 108

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

estimated time frame for the NM Supreme Court to render a decision and for the NMPRC to take action on any remanded issues in extended.

PNM continues to believe that the disallowed investments, which are the subject of PNM’s appeal, were prudent and that PNM is entitled to full recovery of those investments through the ratemaking process. Although PNM believes it is reasonably possible that its appeals will be successful, it cannot predict what decision the NM Supreme Court will reach or what further actions the NMPRC will take on any issues remanded to it by the court. If PNM’s appeal is unsuccessful, PNM would record further pre-tax losses related to the capitalized costs for any unsuccessful issues. The impacts of not recovering future contributions for decommissioning would be recognized in future periods reflecting that rates charged to customers would not recover those costs as they are incurred. The amounts of any such losses to be recorded would depend on the ultimate outcome of the appeal and NMPRC process, as well as the actual amounts reflected on PNM books at the time of the resolution. However, based on the book values recorded by PNM as of December 31, 2017, such losses could include:

The remaining costs to acquire the assets previously leased under three leases aggregating 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2 capacity in excess of the recovery permitted under the NMPRC’s order; the net book value of such excess amount was $75.3 million, after considering the loss recorded in 2016 and 2017
The undepreciated costs of capitalized improvements made during the period the 64.1 MW of capacity in PVNGS Unit 2 purchased by PNM in January 2016 was being leased by PNM; the net book value of these improvements was $39.1 million, after considering the loss recorded in 2016 and 2017
The remaining costs to convert SJGS Units 1 and 4 to BDT; the net book value of these assets was $49.4 million, after considering the loss recorded in 2016 and 2017

Although PNM does not believe that the likelihood of the cross-appeals being successful is probable, it is unable to predict what decision the NM Supreme Court will reach. If the NM Supreme Court were to overturn all of the issues subject to the cross-appeals and, upon remand, the NMPRC did not provide any cost recovery of those items, PNM would write-off all of the costs to acquire the assets previously leased under three leases, aggregating 64.1 MW of PVNGS Unit 2 capacity, totaling $151.1 million (which amount includes $75.3 million that is the subject of PNM’s appeal discussed above) at December 31, 2017, after considering the loss recorded in 2016 and 2017. The impacts of not recovering costs for the lease extensions, new coal supply contract for Four Corners, and “prepaid pension asset” in rate base would be recognized in future periods reflecting that rates charged to customers would not recover those costs as they are incurred. The outcomes of the cross-appeals regarding the FPPAC and rate design should not have a financial impact to PNM.

PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

New Mexico 2016 General Rate Case (“NM 2016 Rate Case”)

On December 7, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for a general increase in retail electric rates. PNM did not include any of the costs disallowed in the NM 2015 Rate Case that are at issue in its pending appeal to the NM Supreme Court. Key aspects of PNM’s request were:

An increase in base non-fuel revenues of $99.2 million
Based on a FTY beginning January 1, 2018 (the NMPRC’s rules specify that a FTY is a 12 month period beginning up to 13 months after the filing of a rate case application)
ROE of 10.125%
Drivers of revenue deficiency
Implementation of the modifications in PNM’s resource portfolio, which were previously approved by the NMPRC as part of the SJGS regional haze compliance plan (Note 16)
Infrastructure investments, including environmental upgrades at Four Corners
Declines in forecasted energy sales due to successful energy efficiency programs and other economic factors
Updates in the FERC/retail jurisdictional allocations
Proposed changes to rate design to establish fair and equitable pricing across rate classes and to better align cost recovery with cost causation
Increased customer and demand charges

B - 109

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

A “lost contribution to fixed cost” mechanism applicable to residential and small commercial customers to address the regulatory disincentive associated with PNM’s energy efficiency programs

The NMPRC scheduled a public hearing to begin on June 5, 2017, ordered that a settlement conference should be held, and that any resulting stipulation should be filed by March 27, 2017. Settlement discussions were held, but no agreements were reached by March 27, 2017, after which the date for filing a stipulation was extended. In early May 2017, PNM and thirteen intervenors (the “Signatories”) entered into a comprehensive stipulation. On May 12, 2017, the Hearing Examiners issued an order rejecting the stipulation in its then current form, but allowed the Signatories to revise the stipulation. On May 23, 2017, the Signatories filed a revised stipulation that addressed the issues raised by the Hearing Examiners in their order. NEE was the sole party opposing the revised stipulation. The terms of the revised stipulation, which required NMPRC approval in order to take effect, included:

A revenue increase totaling $62.3 million, with an initial increase of $32.3 million beginning January 1, 2018 and the remaining increase beginning January 1, 2019
A ROE of 9.575%
Full recovery of PNM’s investment in SCRs at Four Corners with a debt-only return
An agreement not to adjust non-fuel base rate changes to be effective prior to January 1, 2020
An agreement to adjust the January 2019 increase for certain changes in federal corporate tax laws enacted prior to November 1, 2018 and effective and applicable to PNM by January 1, 2019 and to true-up PNM’s cost of debt for refinancing transactions through 2018
Returning to customers over a three-year period the benefit of the reduction in the New Mexico corporate income tax rate (Note 11) to the extent attributable to PNM’s retail operations
PNM would withdraw its proposal for a “lost contribution to fixed cost” mechanism with the issue to be addressed in a future docket
PNM would perform a cost benefit analysis in its 2020 IRP of the impact of a possible early exit from Four Corners in 2024 and 2028

A hearing on the revised stipulation was held in August 2017. On October 31, 2017, the Hearing Examiners issued a Certification of Stipulation recommending a Modified Revised Stipulation. The significant changes to the revised stipulation in the Hearing Examiners’ Modified Revised Stipulation included:

Identifying PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners as imprudent
Disallowing PNM’s ability to collect a debt or equity return on its $90.1 million investment in SCRs at Four Corners and on $58.0 million of projected capital improvements during the period July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018
Recommending a temporary disallowance of $36.8 million of PNM’s projected capital improvements at SJGS through December 31, 2018

On December 20, 2017, the NMPRC issued anOrder Partially Adopting Certification of Stipulation, which approved the Hearing Examiners’ Certification of Stipulation with certain changes. Substantive changes from the Certification of Stipulation included requiring the impacts of changes related to the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate be implemented effective January 1, 2018 rather than January 1, 2019 and deferring further consideration regarding the prudency of PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners to a future proceeding.

On December 28, 2017 PNM filed a Motion for Rehearing and Request for Oral Argumentasking the NMPRC to vacate their December 20, 2017 order and allow the parties to present oral argument. Additionally, several signatories to the revised stipulation filed a Joint Motion for Partial Rehearing asking that the NMPRC approve the Revised Stipulation without modification. On January 2, 2018, NEE filed a response urging the NMPRC to reject PNM’s Motion.

On January 3, 2018, the NMPRC vacated its December 20, 2017 order and granted the motions for rehearing. The rehearing was held on January 10, 2017.

The NMPRC issued a Revised Order Partially Adopting Certification of Stipulation dated January 10, 2018 (the “Revised Order”). The Revised Order approved the Hearing Examiners’ Certification of Stipulation with certain changes including:


B - 110

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

Requiring the impacts of changes related to the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate and PNM’s cost of debt be implemented in 2018 rather than January 1, 2019
Deferring further consideration regarding the prudency of PNM’s decision to continue its participation in Four Corners to PNM’s next rate case
Disallowing PNM’s ability to collect an equity return on its $90.1 million investment in SCRs at Four Corners and on $58.0 million of projected capital improvements during the period July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018, but allowed recovery of the total $148.1 million of investments with a debt-only return
Requiring PNM to reduce the requested $62.3 million increase in non-fuel revenue by $9.1 million
Implementation of the first phase of the rate increase for services rendered, rather than bills rendered, on or after February 1, 2018 and of the second for services rendered on or after January 1, 2019

On January 16, 2018, PNM requested clarifying changes to the Revised Order to adjust the $9.1 million reduction to $4.4 million, asserting that $4.7 million of the reduction was duplicative. On January 17, 2018, the NMPRC issued an order approving the adjustment requested by PNM. On January 19, 2018, PNM and the Signatories filed a Joint Notice of All Signatories of Acceptance of the Order on Notice of Acceptance. On January 31, 2018, the NMPRC issued an order closing the docket in the NM 2016 Rate Case. After implementation of changes to the federal corporate income tax rate and cost of debt, the final order results in a net increase to PNM’s non-fuel revenue requirement of $10.3 million. PNM implemented 50% of the approved increase for service rendered on or after February 1, 2018 and will implement the rest of the increase for service rendered on or after January 1, 2019.

GAAP requires PNM to recognize a loss to reflect that PNM will not earn an equity return on $148.1 million of investments at Four Corners. As of December 31, 2017, PNM recorded a pre-tax regulatory disallowance of $27.9 million. The amount of the loss was calculated by determining the present value of disallowed cash flows, which equals the difference between the cash flows resulting from recovery of those investments at PNM’s embedded cost of debt and the cash flows with a full return on investment (including an equity component), and discounting the differences at PNM’s WACC.

On February 7, 2018, NEE filed a notice of appeal with the NM Supreme Court asking the court to review the NMPRC’s decisions in the NM 2016 Rate Case. The notice does not set forth the basis of the appeal, which, as required by the court’s rules, is to be filed by March 9, 2018. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Proceeding Regarding Definition of Future Test Year

On May 27, 2015, the NMPRC approved an order that defines a FTY as a period that begins no later than 45 days following the filing of an application to increase rates. PNM disagreed with the interpretation adopted by the NMPRC and believes that the correct interpretation of the New Mexico FTY statute allows a FTY to begin up to 13 months after the filing of an application.

On June 25, 2015, PNM filed a Noticenotice of Appealappeal to the NMSC,NM Supreme Court, challenging the NMPRC’s June 3, 2015 written order. On July 31, 2015, PNM and the NMPRC filed a joint motion for a temporary 30-day stay and remand of PNM’s appeal so that the NMPRC could reconsider its FTY order in PNM’s 2014 rate case. The NMSCNM Supreme Court remanded this matter back to the NMPRC. On November 30, 2015, the NMPRC modified its previous order to provide for a FTY to begin up to 13 months after the filing of a rate case application. On December 9, 2015, the NMPRC filed its revised order with the NMSC. On January 20, 2016, PNM and the NMPRC filed an unopposed stipulation of voluntaryfor dismissal of the appeal and the NMSCNM Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on February 15, 2016.

Investigation/Rulemaking Concerning NMPRC Ratemaking Policies

On March 22, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order opening an investigation and rulemaking to simplify and increase “the transparency of NMPRC rate cases by reducing the number of issues litigated in rate cases,” and provide a “more level playing field among intervenors and NMPRC staff on the one hand, and the utilities on the other.” The order posed the following questions: whether a standardized method should be established for determining ROE; should the ROE be subject to reward or penalty based on utilities meeting or failing to meet certain metrics, which could include customer complaints, outages, peak demand reductions, and RPS and energy efficiency compliance; whether recovery of utility rate case expenses should be limited to 50% unless the case is settled; whether intervenors should be allowed to recover their expenses if the NMPRC accepts their position; whether parties should have access to software used by utilities to support their positions; and how regulatory assets should be authorized

B - 111

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

and recovered. Initial comments were filed in July 2017 and several public workshops have been held. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding.

Renewable Portfolio Standard
The REA establishes a mandatory RPS requiring a utility to acquire a renewable energy portfolio equal to 10% of retail electric sales by 2011, 15% by 2015, and 20% by 2020. PNM files annual renewable energy procurement plans for approval by the NMPRC. The NMPRC requires renewable energy portfolios to be “fully diversified.” The current diversity requirements, which are subject to the limitation of the RCT, are minimums of 30% wind, 20% solar, 3% distributed generation, and 5% other.
The REA provides for streamlined proceedings for approval of utilities’ renewable energy procurement plans, assures that utilities recover costs incurred consistent with approved procurement plans, and requires the NMPRC to establish a RCT for the procurement of renewable resources to prevent excessive costs being added to rates. Currently, the RCT is set at 3% of customers’ annual electric charges. PNM makes renewable procurements consistent with the NMPRC approved plans. PNM recovers certain renewable procurement costs from customers through a rate rider. See Renewable Energy Rider below.
Included in PNM’s approved procurement plans are the following renewable energy resources:
2013 plan – Construction of 20107 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities, atincluding 40 MW constructed in 2015 that were identified as a cost of $48.9 million; windcost-effective resource in PNM’s application to retire SJGS Units 2 and solar REC purchases3 (Note 16) and are being recovered in 2013; a PPA for the output ofbase rates provided in the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility;NM 2015 Rate Case discussed above rather than through PNM’s renewable energy rider; and an additional procurement of 1.5 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities to supply the energy sold under PNM’s voluntary renewable energy tariff. The plan enabled PNM to comply withtariff
A PPA through 2044 for the statutory RPS in 2013, but required a variance from the NMPRC’s diversity requirements in 2013 while the proposed geothermal facilities were being constructed. The geothermal facility began providing power to PNM in January 2014. The current output of the facility is 4New Mexico Wind, having a current aggregate capacity of 204 MW and future expansion may result in up to 9 MW of generation capacity.
2014 plan – 50,000 MWh of wind generated RECs in 2014; construction of 23 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities at a cost of $46.5 million; a 20-year PPA through 2035 for the output of Red Mesa Wind, an existing wind generator having an aggregate capacity of 102 MW beginning
A PPA through 2042 for the output of the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility; the geothermal facility began providing power to PNM in January 1, 20152014; the current capacity of the facility is 4 MW
Solar distributed generation, aggregating 81.6 MW at a first year cost estimated to be $5.8 million;December 31, 2017, owned by customers or third parties from whom PNM purchases any net excess output and the purchase of 120,000 MWh ofRECs
Solar and wind RECs in 2015.
2015 plan – Construction of 40 MW of PNM-owned solar PV facilities at a cost of $79.3 million. The proposed 40 MW solar facilities are identified as being a cost-effective resource in PNM’s applicationneeded to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3 (Note 16). Under a stipulated settlement,meet the costs of the 40 MW of solar would be recovered in base rates rather than through PNM’s renewable energy rider and have been included in rates requested in the New Mexico General Rate Case discussed above.RPS requirements

PNM filed its 2016 renewable energy procurement plan on June 1, 2015. The plan meetsmet RPS and diversity requirements within the RCT in 2016 and 2017. The plan does2017 using existing resources and did not propose any significant new procurements. The NMPRC approved the plan in November 2015, but subsequently vacated the order in response toand, after granting a rehearing motion to consider issues regarding the rate treatment of certain non-residential customers eligible for a cap on, RPS procurement costs and certain governmental customers exemptor an exemption from, RPS procurement, costs. On rehearing, the NMPRC again approved the plan in an order issued on February 3, 2016. In this order, theThe NMPRC deferred the issueissues related to capped and exempt customers to PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case and to a new case, relatedwhich the NMPRC subsequently initiated through issuance of an order to show cause. The NM 2015 Rate Case and show cause proceeding were to examine whether PNM miscalculated the FPPAC factor and base fuel costs in its treatment of renewable energy costs and application of the renewable procurement cost caps and exemptions. The show cause proceeding was stayed pending the outcome of the NM 2015 Rate Case. The September 28, 2016 order in the NM 2015 Rate Case directed that the cost of New Mexico Wind be recovered through PNM’s renewable rider, rather than the FPPAC, and ordered certain other modifications regarding the accounting for renewable energy in PNM’s FPPAC. These modifications do not affect the amount of fuel and purchased power or renewable costs that PNM will collect. No action has been taken in the show cause proceeding and PNM cannot predict its outcome.

PNM filed its 2017 renewable energy procurement plan on June 1, 2016. The plan met RPS and diversity requirements for 2017 and 2018 using existing resources and PNM did not propose any significant new procurements. PNM projected that its plan would slightly exceed the RCT in 2017 and would be within the RCT in 2018. PNM requested a variance from the RCT in 2017 to the calculationextent the NMPRC determined a variance was necessary. A public hearing was held on September 26, 2016. On October 21, 2016, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision recommending that the plan be approved as filed and also found that a variance from the RCT was not required. The NMPRC approved the recommended decision on November 23, 2016.

On June 1, 2017, PNM filed its 2018 renewable energy procurement plan. PNM requested approval to procure an additional 80 GWh in 2019 and 105 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of PNM’s FPPAC, as discussedNew Mexico Wind; approval to procure an additional 55 GWh in FPPAC Continuation Application below.

B- 107B - 112

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

2019 and 77 GWh in 2020 from a re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal; approval to procure 50 MW of new solar facilities to be constructed beginning in 2018, and continuation of customer REC purchase programs and other purchases of RECs to ensure annual compliance with the RPS. PNM’s proposed procurement cost for 2018 and 2019 will be within the RCT. The plan also sought a variance from the “other” diversity category in 2018 due to a revised production forecast of the Lightning Dock Geothermal facility in 2018. PNM also requested to adjust its annual renewable energy rate rider to collect the costs of renewable resources. A public hearing on the application was held in September 2017. On October 17, 2017, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision that PNM’s 2018 renewable energy procurement plan be approved by the NMPRC, except for the re-powering of Lightning Dock Geothermal and PNM’s request to procure 50 MW of new solar facilities. The Hearing Examiner recommended that the PPA for the output of energy from Lightning Dock Geothermal be terminated effective January 1, 2018. The Hearing Examiner also recommended that PNM be required to issue another all-renewables RFP allowing developers to utilize PNM-owned sites to construct facilities, the output from which facilities would be sold to PNM through PPAs. PNM strongly disagreed with the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and filed exceptions contesting the Hearing Examiner’s proposals. On November 15, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order approving PNM’s plan and rejecting the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations. On November 29, 2017, NMIEC filed an appeal with the NM Supreme Court objecting to the fuel allocation methodology. On December 14, 2017, NEE filed a motion to intervene and cross-appeal objecting to the approval of the 50 MW of new solar facilities. On December 18, 2017, PNM filed a motion to intervene, which was granted. NMIEC filed a motion for a partial stay of the NMPRC order and PNM filed a response opposing the request. On February 27, 2018, the court issued an order denying the motion for stay. A briefing schedule has not been determined. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
Renewable Energy Rider
The NMPRC has authorized PNM to recover certain renewable procurement costs through a rate rider billed on a per KWh basis. TheIn PNM’s NM 2015 Rate Case, the NMPRC authorized continuation of the renewable rider. PNM recorded revenues from the rider will terminate upon a finalof $45.2 million, $42.0 million, and $41.9 million in 2017, 2016, and 2015. Beginning in 2017, the costs of energy from New Mexico Wind is being recovered through the rider, rather than through the FPPAC, in compliance with the NMPRC’s order in PNM’s pending electric rateNM 2015 Rate Case. In its 2018 renewable energy procurement plan case, unlessPNM proposed to collect $43.5 million. The 2018 renewable energy procurement plan became effective on January 1, 2018.
Under the NMPRC authorizes PNM to continue it. As a separate component of therenewable rider, if PNM’s earned rate of return on jurisdictional equity in a calendar year, adjusted for weather and other items not representative of normal operations, exceeds 10.5%the NMPRC-approved rate by 0.5%, PNM would beis required to refund the amount over 10.5%excess to customers during May through December of the following year. PNM made timelyPNM’s annual compliance filings with the NMPRC demonstratingshow that it hadits rate of return on jurisdictional equity did not exceededexceed the 10.5% return for 2014 and 2013.limitation through 2016. Preliminary calculations indicate PNM’s jurisdictional equity returnPNM did not exceed 10.5%such limitation in 2015.

PNM recorded revenues from the rider of $41.9 million, $31.9 million, and $21.7 million in 2015, 2014, and 2013. In its 2016 renewable energy procurement plan case, PNM proposed to collect $42.4 million in 2016. The 2016 rider adjustment was approved as part of the final order issued February 3, 2016 on the 2016 renewable energy plan.2017.
Energy Efficiency and Load Management
Program Costs and Incentives/Disincentives

Public utilities are required by theThe New Mexico Efficient Use of Energy Act (“EUEA”) requires public utilities to achieve specified levels of energy savings and to obtain NMPRC approval to implement energy efficiency and load management programs. In 2013,The EUEA requires the NMPRC to remove utility disincentives to implementing energy efficiency and load management programs and to provide incentives for such programs. The NMPRC has adopted a rule to implement this act was amended to setact. The EUEA sets an annual program budget equal to 3% of an electric utility’s annual revenue. PNM’s costs to implement approved programs are recovered through a rate rider.

In October 2012, PNM filed an energy efficiency program application for programs proposed to be offered beginning in May 2013. The filing included proposed program costs of $22.5 million plus a proposed profit incentive. The NMPRC approved PNM’s program application, including the annual profit incentive discussed below, on November 6, 2013.

On October 6, 2014, PNM filed an energy efficiency program application for programs proposed to be offered beginning in June 2015. The filing included proposed program costs of $25.8 million plus a proposed profit incentive. The proposed energy efficiency budget and plan are consistent with the 2013 amendments to the Efficient Use of Energy Act.EUEA. PNM and the NMPRC staff filed a stipulated settlement on January 30, 2015. After a public hearing, the NMPRC approved the settlement on April 29, 2015. The approval established program budgets and the incentive amounts discussed below.amounts.
Disincentives/Incentives
The Efficient Use of Energy Act requires the NMPRC to remove utility disincentives to implementingOn April 15, 2016, PNM filed an application for energy efficiency and load management programs and to provide incentives for such programs.be offered in 2017. The NMPRC has adoptedproposed program portfolio consisted of ten programs with a rule to implement this act. In November 2013,total budget of $28.0 million. The application also sought approval of an incentive of $2.4 million based on targeted savings of 75 GWh. The actual incentive would be based on actual savings achieved. On January 11, 2017, the NMPRC issuedapproved an order authorizing PNMunopposed stipulation that established a method to recover an incentive equal to 7.6% of annual program costs beginning with program implementation in December 2013. Based on PNM’s approved program costs, this amounted to an annual incentive of $1.7 million.
In PNM’s 2014 energy efficiency program application, PNM proposed an energy efficiency incentive of $2.1 million. PNM’s proposed incentive was based upon a shared benefits methodology and is similar in amount to previous PNM incentives authorized by the NMPRC. Under the terms of the January 30, 2015 stipulation discussed above, the incentive amount would be $1.7 million in 2015 and $1.8 million in 2016 assuming threshold level of savings are achieved.ensure that

Energy Efficiency Rulemaking

On May 17, 2012, the NMPRC issued a NOPR that would have amended the NMPRC’s energy efficiency rule to authorize use of a decoupling mechanism to recover certain fixed costs of providing retail electric service as the mechanism for removal of disincentives associated with the implementation of energy efficiency programs. The proposed rule also addressed incentives associated with energy efficiency. On July 26, 2012, the NMPRC closed the proposed rulemaking and opened a new energy efficiency rulemaking docket that may address decoupling and incentives. Workshops to develop a proposed rule have been held, but no order proposing a rule has been issued. PNM is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

B- 108B - 113

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

funding of PNM’s energy efficiency program is equal to 3% of retail revenues, with an estimated 2017 energy efficiency funding level of $26.0 million, and approved a sliding scale profit incentive with a base level of 7.1% of program costs, equal to $1.8 million, if PNM achieves a minimum proscribed level of energy savings, increasing to a maximum of 9.0% depending on actual energy savings achieved above the minimum. PNM’s preliminary estimate of the incentive earned in 2017 is $2.1 million, which is subject to verification by an independent evaluator.

On October 2, 2013,April 14, 2017, PNM filed an application for energy efficiency and load management programs to be offered in 2018. The proposed program portfolio consists of a continuation of the ten programs approved in the 2016 application with a total budget of $25.1 million. The application also sought approval of a sliding scale incentive with a base incentive of $1.9 million if PNM is able to achieve savings of 53 GWh in 2018. As proposed, PNM would have earned an incentive of $2.1 million based on targeted savings of 70 GWh. The actual incentive would be based on actual savings achieved. PNM proposed to continue the same ten programs and a similar incentive mechanism in 2019, with a proposed budget of $28.2 million and a base level incentive of $2.1 million. On July 26, 2017, PNM, NMPRC staff, and other parties filed a stipulation that would resolve all issues in the case if approved by the NMPRC. Under the settlement, all of PNM’s proposed programs would be approved with limited modifications and PNM’s base level incentive would be $1.7 million in 2018. PNM would earn an incentive of $1.9 million based on targeted savings of 69 GWh. A public hearing was held in September 2017. On November 8, 2017, the Hearing Examiner issued a NOPR andCertification of Stipulation recommending approval of the stipulation with various modifications, including adoption of a proposed rule to implement amendmentsdiscount rate equal to the New Mexico Efficient Usetax-adjusted WACC of Energy Act. The9.59% rather than the 7.71% proposed in the stipulation and modifying the program budgets to $23.6 million for 2018 and $24.9 million for 2019. On January 31, 2018, the NMPRC issued an order on October 8, 2014 adoptingthat largely accepts the certification with certain exceptions concerning the measurement and verification of the approved load management programs.

Energy Efficiency Rulemaking

In July 2012, the NMPRC opened an energy efficiency rulemaking docket to potentially address decoupling and incentives. Workshops to develop a proposed rule which includeshave been held, but no order proposing a provision that limits incentive awardsrule has been issued. PNM is unable to an amount equal to the utility’s WACC times its approved annual program costs.
FPPAC Continuation Application
Pursuant to the rules of the NMPRC, public utilities are required to file an application to continue using their FPPAC every four years. On May 28, 2013, PNM filed the required continuation application and requested that its current FPPAC be modified to increase the reset frequency of the fuel factor from annually to quarterly, to allow PNM to retain 10% of its off-system sales margin, and to apply the same carrying charge rate to both over and under collections in the balancing account. On April 23, 2014, the NMPRC approved a stipulated agreement resolving this case. The settlement allows PNM to retain 10% of off-system sales margin from July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016, resolves the ratemaking treatment for coal pre-treatment at SJGS until the next rate case, required PNM to write-off $10.5 million of the under-collected balance in its FPPAC balancing account, and required PNM to recover the remaining under-collected balance ($63.5 million as of April 30, 2014) over 18 months beginning July 1, 2014. PNM recorded the $10.5 million write off as a regulatory disallowance in the fourth quarter of 2013.
The NMPRC issued a show cause order on February 3, 2016 concerning the rate treatment of large and capped customers in respect to PNM’s RPS procurements to determine whether PNM miscalculated the FPPAC and base fuel costs due to its treatment of renewable energy costs. See the Renewable Portfolio Standard above. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
On January 25, 2017, the NMPRC opened another energy efficiency rulemaking docket to consider whether applications for approval of energy efficiency and load management programs should be filed every two years rather than annually. On June 21, 2017, the NMPRC issued an order that modifies the filing frequency for utility energy efficiency plans to every three years. Also on June 21, 2017, the NMPRC issued a new notice of proposed rulemaking to consider possible changes affecting a utility’s ability to modify NMPRC approved funding levels by up to 10% between energy efficiency program applications. This rulemaking is in response to consensus changes proposed by parties in the January 25, 2017 rulemaking. On September 13, 2017, the NMPRC approved the proposed rule. Under the new rule, PNM’s next application for energy efficiency and load management programs will be made in 2020 for programs to be offered beginning in 2021.

Integrated Resource PlanPlans
NMPRC rules require that investor owned utilities file an IRP every three years. The IRP is required to cover a 20-year planning period and contain an action plan covering the first four years of that period.
2014 IRP
PNM filed its 2014 IRP on July 1, 2014. The four-year action plan was consistent with the replacement resources identified in PNM’s application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. PNM indicated that it planned to meet its anticipated long-term load growthresource needs with a combination of additional renewable energy resources, energy efficiency, and natural gas-fired facilities. Consistent with statute and NMPRC rule, PNM incorporated a public advisory process into the development of its 2014 IRP. On July 31, 2014, several parties requested the NMPRC to not to accept the 2014 IRP as compliant with NMPRC rule because to do so could affect the then pending proceeding on PNM’s application to abandon SJGS Units 2 and 3 and for CCNs for certain replacement resources (Note 16) and because they assertasserted that the 2014 IRP doesdid not conform to the NMPRC’s IRP rule. Certain parties also asked that further proceedings on the 2014 IRP be held in abeyance until the conclusion of the pendingSJGS abandonment/CCN proceeding. The NMPRC issued an order in August 2014 that docketed a case to determine whether the 2014 IRP compliescomplied with applicable NMPRC rules. The order also held the case in abeyance pending the issuance of final, non-appealable orders in PNM’s 2015 renewable energy procurement plan case and its application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. The final order regarding PNM’s application to abandon SJGS Units 2 and 3 described in Note 16 states that the NMPRC will issue a Notice of Proposed Dismissal in the 2014 IRP docket. Such notice

B - 114

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

On May 4, 2016, the NMPRC issued the Notice of Proposed Dismissal, stating that the docket would be closed with prejudice within thirty days unless good cause was shown why the docket should remain open. On May 31, 2016, NEE filed a request to hold the protests filed against PNM’s 2014 IRP in abeyance or to dismiss those protests without prejudice. PNM responded on June 13, 2016 and requested that the NMPRC dismiss the case with prejudice. The NMPRC has not yet been issued.acted on its Notice of Proposed Dismissal or the request filed on May 31, 2016. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.
2017 IRP
PNM filed its 2017 IRP on July 3, 2017. The 2017 IRP addresses a 20-year planning period, from 2017 through 2036, and includes an action plan describing PNM’s plan to implement the 2017 IRP in the four-year period following its filing. PNM held its initial public advisory meeting on the 2017 IRP on June 30, 2016 and hosted 17 meetings statewide to present details of the process and receive public comment. The NMPRC’s order concerning SJGS’ compliance with the BART requirements of the CAA discussed in Note 16 requires PNM to make a filing in 2018 to determine the extent to which SJGS Units 1 and 4 should continue serving PNM’s retail customers’ needs after June 30, 2022. The 2017 IRP analyzed several scenarios utilizing assumptions that PNM continues service from its SJGS capacity beyond mid-2022 and that PNM retires its capacity after mid-2022. Key findings of the 2017 IRP include:

Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS in 2022 after the expiration of the current operating and coal supply agreements would provide long-term cost savings for PNM’s customers
PNM exiting its ownership interest in Four Corners after its current coal supply agreement expires in 2031 would also save customers money
The best mix of new resources to replace the retired coal generation would include solar energy and flexible natural gas-fired peaking capacity; the mix could include energy storage, if the economics support it, and wind energy, provided additional transmission capacity becomes available
Significant increases in future wind energy supplies will likely require new transmission capacity to be built from eastern New Mexico to PNM’s service territory
PNM should retain the currently leased capacity in PVNGS, which would avoid replacement with carbon-emitting generation
PNM should continue to develop and implement energy efficiency and demand management programs
PNM should assess the costs and benefits of participating in the California Energy Imbalance Market
PNM should analyze its current Reeves Generating Station to consider possible technology improvements to phase out the older generators and replace them with new, more flexible supplies or energy storage

Protests to the 2017 IRP were filed by several parties. The issues addressed in the protests included the future of PNM’s interests in SJGS, Four Corners, and PVNGS and the timing of future procurement of renewable resources. The NMPRC has assigned the case to a Hearing Examiner. On January 16, 2018, the Hearing Examiner issued an order setting the scope of the proceedings as the 2017 IRP’s compliance with applicable statute and NMPRC rules. PNM is required to provide certain underlying information and clarify how costs, transmission constraints, energy storage, and public input were considered in developing the 2017 IRP. A pre-hearing conference was held on January 26, 2018 and hearings are scheduled to begin on June 4, 2018.

The 2017 IRP is not a final determination of PNM’s future generation portfolio. Retiring PNM’s share of SJGS capacity and exiting Four Corners would require NMPRC approval of abandonment filings, which PNM would make at appropriate times in the future. Likewise, NMPRC approval of new generation resources through CCN filings would be required. PNM cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the 2017 IRP process or whether the NMPRC will approve subsequent filings that would encompass actions to implement the conclusions of the 2017 IRP.
San Juan Generating Station Units 2 and 3 Retirement
On December 20, 2013, PNM filed an application at16, 2015, the NMPRC to retireissued an order approving PNM’s retirement of SJGS Units 2 and 3 on December 31, 2017. On October 1, 2014, PNM and certain parties to the case filed a stipulation with the NMPRC proposing a settlement of this case. The Hearing Examiner issued a Certification of Stipulation on April 8, 2015 that recommended rejection of the agreement as proposed, and recommended several modifications to the agreement. On August 13, 2015, PNM and certain parties to the case filed an agreement that, subject to approval by the NMPRC, would modify the stipulation and settle all issues in the case. The NMPRC issued an order approving the modified stipulation on December 16, 2015. On January 14, 2016, NEE filed an appeal of the final order with the NMSC. On February 5, 2016, NEE filed a motion with the NMPRC for reconsideration of the final order based on developments subsequent to the date of the order (Note 16). PNM filed its response to that motion on February 18, 2016.NM Supreme Court. SJGS Units 2 and 3 were retired in December 2017. Additional information concerning the NMPRC filing including a summary of the terms of the modified stipulation, and related proceedings before the NMSC is set forth in Note 16. On September 25,

B - 115

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 PNM made an application at FERC seeking certain approvals necessary for implementation of the restructured SJGS participation agreements. FERC issued the requested approvals on December 30, 2015.

Application for Certificate of Convenience and Necessity

On June 30, 2015, PNM filed an application for a CCN for a 187 MW gas plant to be located at SJGS. This resource was identified as a replacement resource in PNM’s application to retire SJGS Units 2 and 3. On February 12, 2016, PNM estimatedfiled a motion to withdraw its application. On May 18, 2016, the NMPRC issued an order granting PNM’s request to withdraw the application and closing the case.
On April 26, 2016, PNM filed an application for an 80 MW gas plant to be located at SJGS, with an anticipated June 2018 in-service date. On October 13, 2016, PNM filed a motion to vacate the procedural schedule to allow PNM to assess the continued need for the plant in light of possible changed circumstances affecting loads and resources. On October 28, 2016, PNM filed a motion to withdraw its application and close the docket. As grounds for the motion, PNM stated that, based on its updated peak demand forecast, the 80 MW plant would not be needed in 2018. On December 1, 2016, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommended decision that would grant PNM’s motion to withdraw its application. On May 24, 2017, the NMPRC issued its order approving the recommended decision and granting the motion to withdraw the application. PNM will continue to evaluate its resource needs as part of its ongoing resource planning activities.

Advanced Metering Infrastructure Application

On February 26, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC requesting approval of a project to replace its existing customer metering equipment with Advanced Metering Infrastructure (“AMI”). The application asks the NMPRC to authorize the recovery of the cost of the facility,project, up to $87.2 million, in future ratemaking proceedings, as well as to approve the recovery of the remaining undepreciated investment in existing metering equipment estimated to be approximately $33 million at the date of implementation and the costs of customer education and severances for affected employees. Hearings in this matter were held in February and March 2017. During the March 2017 hearing, it was disclosed that the proposed meter contractor may not have complied with certain New Mexico contractor licensing requirements. PNM subsequently filed testimony regarding that matter as ordered by the Hearing Examiner. On May 12, 2017, PNM requested a new procedural schedule to allow it to issue a new RFP for contracting work related to the meter installation and to update its cost-benefit analysis. PNM subsequently updated the amount of the requested recovery for the anticipated cost of the project to $95.1 million. An additional hearing was held on October 25-26, 2017. PNM does not intend to proceed with the AMI project unless the NMPRC approves the entire application. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Facebook, Inc. Data Center Project

On July 8, 2016, PNM filed an application with the NMPRC for approval of:

Two new electric service rates
A PPA under which PNM would purchase renewable energy from PNMR Development
A special service contract to provide electric service to a prospective new customer, a large Internet company, that was considering locating a data center in PNM’s service area
The NMPRC approved PNM’s application on August 17, 2016. At that time, the new customer was also considering the state of Utah for the location of the data center. On September 15, 2016, PNM filed a notice informing the NMPRC that the customer, Facebook, Inc., had announced that it was selecting a site in New Mexico for its new data center.
Facebook’s service requirements include the acquisition by PNM of a sufficient amount of new renewable energy resources and RECs to match the energy and capacity requirements of the data center. PNM’s initial procurement was to be through a PPA with PNMR Development for the energy production from 30 MW of new solar capacity that PNMR Development was constructing. As discussed in Note 1, PNMR Development transferred its interests in the solar capacity and the PPA to NMRD in December 2017. The cost of the PPA is to be passed through to Facebook under a new rate rider. A new special service rate will be applied to Facebook’s energy consumption in those hours of the month when their consumption exceeds the energy production from the new renewable resources. The first 10 MW of solar capacity began commercial operation on January 1, 2018, which coincides with initial operations of the data center, and the remainder of the capacity is anticipated to be completed by mid-2018.

B- 109B - 116

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

The approval order included a provision requiring that in any future rate case filed by PNM requesting an increase in rates of any other customer class, the NMPRC shall determine whether or not any customer class will be subject to increased rates due to Facebook’s fixed “Contribution to Production Charge for System Supplied Energy” and, if so, the NMPRC shall determine whether or not PNM will be allowed to recover such increased costs in the form of increased rates to other customers. In the NM 2016 Rate Case filing discussed above, PNM indicated the Facebook arrangement did not result in increased rates to any other customer class.

In late 2017, PNM entered into three separate 25-year PPAs to purchase renewable energy and RECs to be used by PNM to supply additional renewable power to Facebook. These PPAs are subject to NMPRC approval and PNM made a filing requesting approval on January 17, 2018. A NMPRC hearing on PNM’s filing is scheduled for March 7, 2018. These PPAs include the purchase of the power and RECs from:

Casa Mesa Wind, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC., which wouldis expected to be located at SJGS,near House, New Mexico, have a total capacity of 50 MW, and be operational on December 31, 2018
A 166 MW potion of the La Joya Wind Project, owned by Avangrid Renewables, LLC, which is expected to be $133.2 million. PNM identified the necessary in-service datelocated near Estancia, New Mexico and be operational in November 2020
Route 66 Solar Energy Center, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC., which is expected to be located west of Albuquerque, New Mexico, have a total capacity of 50 MW, and be operational in the first half of 2018. December 2021
Hazard Sharing Agreements
On July 9, 2015, a party to the SJGS Unit 2 and 3 retirement case filed a motion to consolidate this CCN case with the retirement case, which motion was subsequently withdrawn. PNM is re-evaluating the timing and resource requirements for installation of the natural gas-fired unit requested in the CCN proceeding, including the potential for a smaller unit, along with other possible power resources, taking into consideration PNM’s recently revised lower load forecast and the impacts of the NEC settlement, which is discussed below. On February 12,June 1, 2016, PNM filedand Tri-State entered into a motion to withdraw its applicationone-year hazard sharing agreement, which expired on May 31, 2017.  PNM and stated that it intends to file either a new application for a gas-fueled resource or a report on the status of the CCN application by April 22, 2016. PNM’s current construction expenditure forecast includes a 85 MW gas-fired unit with an estimated cost of $101.8 million. PNM cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding.

Four Corners Right of First Refusal

On February 17, 2015, PNM received notice from EPE that EPE hasTri-State entered into an additional agreement, under substantially identical terms, for a term of five years beginning June 1, 2017, subject to sell its 7% interest in Four Corners to APS, thereby triggering PNM’s ability to exercise its right of first refusal (“ROFR”) to acquire a portion of EPE’s interest in Four Corners. PNM notifiedNMPRC approval. NMPRC approval was not required for the one-year agreement, but was required for the five-year agreement. On May 10, 2017, the NMPRC about receiptissued an order approving the five-year agreement.
Under these agreements, each party sells the other party 100 MW of the noticecapacity and advised the NMPRC thatenergy from each party’s designated primary resource, which is SJGS Unit 4 for PNM did not intend to exercise its rights under the ROFR. The ROFR expired unexercised 120 days after the date of EPE’s notice.

Transmission Rate Case
In October 2010, PNM filed a notice with FERC to increase its wholesale electric transmission revenues by $11.1 million annually, basedand Springerville Generating Station Unit 3 for Tri-State, on a return on equity of 12.25%. FERC accepted PNM’s filing and the proposed rates were implemented on June 1, 2011,unit contingent basis subject to refund.certain performance guarantees.  The rate increase applied to allagreements reduce the magnitude of PNM’s wholesale electric transmission service customers, which include other utilities, electric cooperatives,each party’s single largest generating hazard and entities that use PNM’s transmission system to transmit powerassist in enhancing the reliability and efficiency of their respective operations. Both purchases and sales are made at the wholesale level.  The rate increase did not impactsame market index price. PNM passes the sales and purchases through to customers under PNM’s retail customers. On January 2, 2013, FERC approved an unopposed settlement agreement, which increased transmission revenues by $2.9 million annually. In addition, the parties agreed that if PNM filed for a formula-based rate change within one year from FERC’s approval of the settlement agreement, no party would oppose the general principle of a formula rate, although the parties may still object to particular aspects of the formula. PNM refunded amounts collected in excess of the settled rates in January 2013, concluding this matter.FPPAC.  Information about PNM’s purchases and sales is as follows:
 Sales Purchases
 GWh Amount GWh Amount
   (In millions)   (In millions)
        
Year ended December 31, 2017827.1
 $23.6
 849.0
 $24.2
Year ended December 31, 2016482.3
 12.8
 484.6
 12.9
Formula Transmission Rate Case
On December 31, 2012, PNM filed an application with FERC for authorization to move from charging stated rates for wholesale electric transmission service to a formula rate mechanism pursuant to which rates for wholesale transmission service are calculated annually in accordance with an approved formula. The proposed formula includes updating cost of service components, including investment in plant and operating expenses, based on information contained in PNM’s annual financial report filed with FERC, as well as including projected large transmission capital projects to be placed into service in the following year. The projections included are subject to true-up in the following year formula rate. Certain items, including changes to return on equity and depreciation rates, require a separate filing to be made with FERC before being included in the formula rate. As filed, PNM’s request would have resulted in a $3.2 million wholesale electric transmission rate increase, based on PNM’s 2011 data and a 10.81% return on equity (“ROE”), and authority to adjust transmission rates annually based on an approved formula. The proposed $3.2 million rate increase would be in addition to the $2.9 million rate increase approved by the FERC on January 2, 2013.
On March 1, 2013, FERC issued an order (1) accepting PNM’s revisions to its rates for filing and suspending the proposed revisions to become effective August 2, 2013, subject to refund; (2) directing PNM to submit a compliance filing to establish its ROE using the median, rather than the mid-point, of the ROEs from a proxy group of companies; (3) directing PNM to submit a compliance filing to remove from its rate proposal the acquisition adjustment related to PNM’s 60% ownership of the EIP transmission line, which was acquired in 2003; and (4) setting the proceeding for hearing and settlement judge procedures. PNM would be allowed to make a separate filing related to recovery of the EIP acquisition adjustment. On April 1, 2013, PNM made the required compliance filing. On August 2, 2013, new rates went into effect, subject to refund. In June 2013, May 2014, and March 2015, PNM made additional filings incorporating final 2012, 2013, and 2014 data into the formula rate request. On March 20, 2015, PNM along with five other parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was filed at FERC. The settlement reflects a ROE of 10% and results in an annualannualized increase of $1.3 million above the rates approved in the previous rate case. Additionally, the parties filed a motion to implement the settled rates effective April 1, 2015. On March 25, 2015, the ALJ issued an order authorizing the interim implementation of settled rates beginning on April 1, 2015, subject to refund. In May 2015, the settlement judge recommended that FERC approve the settlement. On March 17, 2016, FERC approved the settlement. PNM made the refunds required under the settlement in May 2016.

B- 110B - 117

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

authorizing the interim implementation of settled rates beginning on April 1, 2015, subject to refund. In May 2015, the settlement judge recommended that FERC approve the settlement. There is no required time frame for FERC to act upon the settlement.
Firm-Requirements Wholesale Customers
Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc.
In September 2011, PNM filedhad a PPA with NEC, previously PNM’s largest firm-requirements wholesale customer, that had an unexecuted amended PSA between PNM and NEC with FERC. NEC filed a protest to PNM’s filing with FERC. In November 2011, FERC issued an order accepting the filing to be effective April 14, 2012, subject to refund, and set the proceeding for settlement. The parties finalized a settlement agreement and amended PSA, which were filed with FERC on December 6, 2012. The settlement agreement and amended PSA provided for an annual increase in revenueexpiration date of$5.3 million and an extension of the contract for 10 years through December 31, 2035. On April 5, 2013, FERC approved the settlement agreement and the amended PSA. In 2015 and 2014, monthly billing demand for power supplied to NEC averaged approximately 54 MW and 55 MW and revenues were $27.1 million and $28.4 million under the PSA.

On April 8, 2015, NEC filed a petition for a declaratory order requesting that FERC find that NEC cancould purchase an unlimited amount of power and energy from third party supplier(s) under the amended PSA. On May 8, 2015, PNM filed an intervention and protestits PSA with FERC requesting that FERC deny NEC’s petition or to proceed with a public hearing if the petition is not denied. On July 16, 2015, FERC issued an order setting the matter for a public hearing concerning the parties’ intent with regard to certain provisions of the PSA and held the hearing in abeyance to provide time for settlement judge procedures.

PNM. Following proceedings before a settlement judge, PNM and NEC entered into, and filed with FERC, a settlement agreement on October 29, 2015 that includes certain amendments to the PSA and related contracts on file with FERC. FERC that, subject to FERC approval, would settle this matter.approved the settlement on January 21, 2016. Under the settlement agreement, PNM would continue to serveserved all of NEC’s load through December 31, 2015 at rates that arewere substantially consistent with those currently provided under the PSA. In 2016, PNM would serveserved all of NEC’s load at reduced demand and energy rates from those under the PSA. Beginning January 1, 2016, NEC would also paypaid certain third-party transmission costs that it did not pay in 2014 andonly partially paid in 2015.previously. The PSA and related transmission agreements would terminateterminated on December 31, 2016. In 2017, PNM would serveserved 10 MW of NEC’s load under a short term coordination tariff at a rate lower than provided under the PSA. PNM received approvalAmounts billed to bill interim rates, which reflect the settlement, effective November 1, 2015 under the PSANEC were $4.5 million, $20.0 million, and effective January 1, 2016 under the related contracts. FERC approved the settlement on January 21, 2016.
City of Gallup, New Mexico Contract
PNM provided both energy and power services to Gallup, previously PNM’s second largest firm-requirements wholesale customer, under an electric service agreement that was to expire on June 30, 2013. On May 1, 2013, PNM and Gallup agreed to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2014 and to increase the demand and energy rates under the agreement.
On September 26, 2013, Gallup issued a request for proposals for long-term power supply. PNM submitted a proposal, but in March 2014, Gallup notified PNM that the contract for long-term power supply had been awarded to another utility. PNM’s contract with Gallup ended on June 29, 2014.  PNM’s revenues for power sold under the Gallup contract were $6.1$27.1 million in the six monthsyears ended June 30, 2014December 31, 2017, 2016, and totaled $11.7 million during 2013.2015. PNM’s New Mexico GeneralNM 2016 Rate Case discussed above reflects a reallocation of costs among regulatory jurisdictions reflecting the termination of the contract to serve Gallup.
In conjunction with the termination of PNM’s electric service agreement with Gallup, Gallup purchased substations and associated transmission facilities owned by PNM that had been used solely to provide service to Gallup. This sale resulted in a gain of $1.1 million, which PNM recorded in other income during the three months ended June 30, 2015.NEC.
TNMP
Advanced Meter System Deployment
In July 2011, the PUCT approved a settlement and authorized an AMS deployment plan that permits TNMP to collect $113.4 million in deployment costs through a surcharge over a 12-year period. TNMP began collecting the surcharge on August 11, 2011. Deployment of advanced meters began in September 20112011. TNMP completed its mass deployment in 2016 and is scheduled to be completed over a 5-year period.

B- 111

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

In February 2012, the PUCT opened a proceeding to consider the feasibility of an “opt-out” program for retail consumers that wish to decline receipt of anhas installed more than 242,000 advanced meter. The PUCT requested comments and held a public meeting on various issues. However, various individuals filed a petition with the PUCT seeking a moratorium on any advanced meter deployment. The PUCT denied the petition and an appeal was filed with the Texas District Court on September 28, 2012. Subsequently, the Texas District Court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and the complainants appealed to the Texas Third Court of Appeals. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on November 25, 2015. This matter is now concluded.meters.
The PUCT adopted a rule on August 15, 2013 creating a non-standard metering service for retail customers choosing to decline standard metering service via an advanced meter. The cost of providing non-standard metering service is to be borne by opt-out customers through an initial fee and ongoing monthly charge.
On September 30, 2013, TNMP filed an application to set the initial fee and monthly charges to be assessed for non-standard metering service provided to those retail customers who choose to decline the advanced meter necessary for standard metering service. On June 20, 2014, As approved by the PUCT, approved a settlement permitting TNMP to recoveris recovering $0.2 million in costs through initial fees ranging from $63.97 to $168.61 and ongoing annual expenses of $0.5 million collected through a $36.78 monthly fee. The settlement presumesThese amounts presume up to 1,081 consumers will elect the non-standard meter service, but preserves TNMP’s rightsTNMP has the right to adjust the fees if the number of anticipated consumers differs from that estimate. TNMP notified all appropriate customers that they could elect non-standard metering. As of February 19, 2016, 98 customers20, 2018, 99 consumers have made the election. TNMP does not expect the implementation of non-standard metering service to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
On October 2, 2015, TNMP filed a reconciliation of the costs and savings of its AMS deployment program with the PUCT. Those costs include $71.0 million in capital costs and $18.0 million in operation and maintenance expenses. However, since the deployment iswas not complete and the total program costs to date arewere $1.5 million below the original approved forecasts, TNMP isdid not requestingrequest a change to its monthly surcharge amount. The reconciliation is subject to prudency and reasonableness review by the PUCT. On January 8, 2016, the PUCT staff recommended that the PUCT approveapproved TNMP’s reconciliation without adjustment. The matter is pending beforeadjustment on March 25, 2016. In connection with TNMP’s deployment of AMS, TNMP committed to file a general rate case no later than September 1, 2018. TNMP will include a final reconciliation of AMS costs in the PUCT. TNMP is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.2018 filing.
Energy Efficiency
TNMP recovers the costs of its energy efficiency programs through an energy efficiency cost recovery factor (“EECRF”), which includes projected program costs, under or over collected costs from prior years, rate case expenses, and performance bonuses (if the programs exceed mandated savings goals). The following sets forth TNMP’s energy efficiency cost recovery factorEECRF increases:
Effective Date Aggregate Collection Amount Performance Bonus Aggregate Collection Amount Performance Bonus
 (in millions) (In millions)
January 1, 2013 $5.2
 $
March 1, 2014 5.6
 0.7
March 1, 2015 5.7
 1.5
 $5.7
 $1.5
March 1, 2016 6.0
 0.7
 6.0
 0.7
March 1, 2017 6.0
 0.8
March 1, 2018 6.0
 1.1

B - 118

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

Transmission Cost of Service Rates
TNMP can update its transmission rates twice per year to reflect changes in its invested capital.capital although updates are not allowed while a general rate case is in progress. Updated rates reflect the addition and retirement of transmission facilities, including appropriate depreciation, federal income tax and other associated taxes, and the approved rate of return on such facilities. The following sets forth TNMP’s recent interim transmission cost rate increases:

B- 112
Effective Date Approved Increase in Rate Base Annual Increase in Revenue
  (In millions)
March 16, 2015 $27.1
 $4.4
September 10, 2015 7.0
 1.4
March 23, 2016 25.8
 4.3
September 8, 2016 9.5
 1.8
March 14, 2017 30.2
 4.8
September 13, 2017 27.5
 4.7

On January 30, 2018, TNMP filed an application to further update its transmission rates, which would increase revenues by $0.6 million annually, based on an increase in rate base of $3.2 million. The application is pending before the PUCT.

On March 23, 2017, the PUCT staff filed proposed amendments to the interim transmission cost of service filing rule. If approved, the amendments could reduce the frequency of such filings to once per year. The amendments could also reduce the amount recovered by requiring that changes in accumulated deferred income taxes be considered and would preclude filings by utilities earning more than their authorized rate of return using weather-normalized data. On February 15, 2018, the PUCT announced at an open meeting that they would not proceed with the proposed amendments.
Periodic Distribution Rate Adjustment
PUCT rules permit interim rate adjustments to reflect changes in investments in distribution assets. Distribution utilities may file for a periodic rate adjustment between April 1 and April 8 of each year as long as the electric utility is not earning more than its authorized rate of return using weather-normalized data. However, TNMP has not made a filing to adjust rates for additional investments in distribution assets. In connection with TNMP’s deployment of its advanced meter system discussed above, TNMP committed to file a general rate case no later than September 1, 2018. TNMP has also committed that it would not file a request for an increase in rates to reflect changes in investments in distribution assets until after the 2018 general rate case.

Competition Transition Charge Compliance Filing

In connection with the adoption of legislation that deregulated electric utilities operating within ERCOT, TNMP was allowed to recover its stranded costs through the CTC and to also recover a carrying charge on the CTC. Further, the order authorizing TNMP's CTC included a true-up provision requiring an adjustment to the CTC due to a cumulative over- or under-collection of revenues, including interest, greater-than or equal to 15% of the most recent annual CTC funding amount. On March 13, 2017, TNMP made a filing to true-up the CTC. The requested adjustment reduces the collection of the amortization by $1.1 million annually. On April 3, 2017, the PUCT staff filed its recommendation to approve the requested adjustment. The change was approved on April 5, 2017 and went into effect on June 1, 2017.

Order Related to Changes in Federal Income Tax Rates

On January 25, 2018, the PUCT issued an accounting order that addresses the change in federal income tax rates on investor-owned utilities in the State of Texas. The order requires investor-owned utilities to record a regulatory liability equal to the reduction in accumulated federal deferred income tax balances at the end of 2017 due to the change in the federal income tax rate. In addition, the order requires that a regulatory liability be recorded to reflect the difference between revenues collected under existing rates and those that would have been collected had those rates been set reflecting federal income tax reform beginning on the date of the order. The order provides that these regulatory liabilities will be considered by the PUCT in each utility’s next rate proceeding, which for TNMP is anticipated to be filed in May 2018. TNMP is evaluating the order and what actions it will take, as are other investor-owned utilities operating in Texas.

B - 119

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015

Effective Date Approved Increase in Rate Base Annual Increase in Revenue
  (in millions)
September 27, 2012 $26.4
 $2.5
March 20, 2013 21.9
 2.9
September 17, 2013 18.1
 2.8
March 13, 2014 18.2
 2.9
September 8, 2014 25.2
 4.2
March 16, 2015 27.1
 4.4
September 10, 2015 7.0
 1.4

On January 29, 2016, TNMP filed an application to further update its transmission rates, which would increase revenues by $4.3 million annually, based on an increase in rate base of $25.8 million. The application is pending before the PUCT.
Periodic Distribution Rate Adjustment
In September 2011, the PUCT approved a rule permitting interim rate adjustments to reflect changes in investments in distribution assets. The rule permits distribution utilities to file for a periodic rate adjustment between April 1 and April 8 of each year as long as the electric utility is not earning more than its authorized rate of return using weather-normalized data.
Consolidated Tax Savings Adjustment
On June 14, 2013, the Governor of Texas signed into law a bill eliminating the consolidated tax savings adjustment (“CTSA”) from electric utility ratemaking in Texas. Previously, the CTSA required electric utilities to artificially reduce their respective tax expenses due to the losses incurred by their affiliates. The bill became effective on September 1, 2013.


B- 113

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

(18)Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
AOCI reports a measure for accumulated changes in equity that result from transactions and other economic events other than transactions with shareholders. Information regarding AOCI is as follows:
 Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
 PNM TNMP PNMR
 Unrealized Gains on Available-for-Sale Securities 
Pension
Liability
Adjustment
 Total Fair Value Adjustment for Cash Flow Hedges Fair Value Adjustment for Cash Flow Hedges Total
 (In thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2012$16,406
 $(97,820) $(81,414) $(216) $
 $(81,630)
 Amounts reclassified from AOCI (pre-tax)(11,956) 6,364
 (5,592) 207
 
 (5,385)
Income tax impact of amounts reclassified4,734
 (2,524) 2,210
 (73) 
 2,137
 Other OCI changes (pre-tax)27,419
 17,136
 44,555
 (279) 
 44,276
Income tax impact of other OCI changes(10,855) (6,781) (17,636) 98
 
 (17,538)
Net change after income taxes9,342
 14,195
 23,537
 (47) 
 23,490
Balance at December 31, 201325,748
 (83,625) (57,877) (263) 
 (58,140)
 Amounts reclassified from AOCI (pre-tax)(13,862) 5,152
 (8,710) 558
 
 (8,152)
Income tax impact of amounts reclassified5,461
 (2,032) 3,429
 (195) 
 3,234
 Other OCI changes (pre-tax)17,473
 (15,282) 2,191
 (153) 
 2,038
Income tax impact of other OCI changes(6,812) 6,024
 (788) 53
 
 (735)
Net change after income taxes2,260
 (6,138) (3,878) 263
 
 (3,615)
Balance at December 31, 201428,008
 (89,763) (61,755) 
 
 (61,755)
 Amounts reclassified from AOCI (pre-tax)(28,531) 5,952
 (22,579) 
 
 (22,579)
Income tax impact of amounts reclassified11,181
 (2,332) 8,849
 
 
 8,849
 Other OCI changes (pre-tax)10,998
 (4,405) 6,593
 
 72
 6,665
Income tax impact of other OCI changes(4,310) 1,726
 (2,584) 
 (28) (2,612)
Net change after income taxes(10,662) 941
 (9,721) 
 44
 (9,677)
Balance at December 31, 2015$17,346
 $(88,822) $(71,476) $
 $44
 $(71,432)
Pre-tax amounts reclassified from AOCI related to Unrealized Gains on Available-for-Sale Securities are included in Gains on available-for-sale securities in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. Pre-tax amounts reclassified from AOCI related to Pension Liability Adjustment are reclassified to Operating Expenses – Administrative and general in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. For the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, approximately 22.2% and 24.4% of the amount reclassified were capitalized into construction work in process and approximately 2.4% and 2.0% were capitalized into other accounts. Pre-tax amounts reclassified from AOCI related to Fair Value Adjustment for Cash Flow Hedges are reclassified to Interest Charges in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. An insignificant amount is then capitalized as AFUDC and capitalized interest. The income tax impacts of all amounts reclassified from AOCI are included in Income Taxes in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings.

B- 114

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

(19) Goodwill; Impairments(18) Goodwill
The excess purchase price over the fair value of the assets acquired and the liabilities assumed by PNMR for its 2005 acquisition of TNP was recorded as goodwill and was pushed down to the businesses acquired. In 2007, the TNMP assets that were included in its New Mexico operations, including goodwill, were transferred to PNM. PNMR’s reporting units that currently have goodwill are PNM and TNMP.
GAAP requires the Company to evaluate its goodwill for impairment annually at the reporting unit level or more frequently if circumstances indicate that the goodwill may be impaired. The Company evaluates goodwill impairment as of April 1st of each year. PNMR’s reporting units that have goodwill are PNM and TNMP. Application of the impairment test requires judgment, including the identification of reporting units, assignment of assets and liabilities to reporting units, and determination of the fair value of each reporting unit.
GAAP provides that in certain circumstances an entity may perform a qualitative analysis to conclude that the goodwill of a reporting unit is not impaired. Under a qualitative assessment an entity considers macroeconomic conditions, industry and market considerations, cost factors, overall financial performance, other relevant entity-specific events affecting a reporting unit, as well as whether a sustained decrease (both absolute and relative to its peers) in share price hadhas occurred. An entity considers the extent to which each of the adverse events and circumstances identified could affect the comparison of a reporting unit’s fair value with its carrying amount. An entity places more weight on the events and circumstances that most affect a reporting unit’s fair value or the carrying amount of its net assets. An entity also considers positive and mitigating events and circumstances that may affect its determination of whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. An entity evaluates, on the basis of the weight of evidence, the significance of all identified events and circumstances in the context of determining whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If,A quantitative analysis is not required if, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, an entity determines that it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, a quantitative analysis is not required.amount.
In other circumstances, an entity may perform a quantitative analysis to reach the conclusion regarding impairment with respect to a reporting unit. An entity may choose to perform a quantitative analysis without performing a qualitative analysis and may perform a qualitative analysis for certain reporting units, but a quantitative analysis for others. The first step of the quantitative impairment test requires an entity to compare the fair value of the reporting unit with its carrying value, including goodwill. If as a result of this analysis, the entity concludes there is an indication of impairment in a reporting unit having goodwill, GAAP currently requires the entity is required to perform the second step of the impairment analysis, determining the amount of goodwill impairment to be recorded. The amount is calculated by comparing the implied fair value of the goodwill to its carrying amount. This exercise requireswould require the entity to allocate the fair value determined in step one to the individual assets and liabilities of the reporting unit. Any remaining fair value would be the implied fair value of goodwill on the testing date. To the extent the recorded amount of goodwill of a reporting unit exceeds the implied fair value determined in step two, an impairment loss would be reflected in results of operations. As further discussed under New Accounting Pronouncements in Note 1, a new accounting pronouncement changes how goodwill impairment is determined by eliminating the second step of the quantitative impairment analysis.
An entity may choose to perform a quantitative analysis without performing a qualitative analysis
For both the PNM and may perform a qualitative analysis for certainTNMP reporting units, but a quantitative analysis for others. Prior to 2013, the Company performedPNMR utilized qualitative analyses for all reporting units having goodwill.the annual evaluations performed as of April 1, 2017 and quantitative analyses for the evaluations performed as of April 1, 2016. For the annual evaluations performed as of April 1, 2015, 2014, and 2013, PNMR utilized a quantitative analysis for the PNM reporting unit and a qualitative analysis for the TNMP reporting unit and a quantitative analysis for the PNM reporting unit.

For the April 1, 2017 evaluation for both the PNM and TNMP reporting unit,units, the qualitative analyses were performed by considering changes in the Company’s expectations of future financial performance since the April 1, 2016 quantitative analyses. These analyses considered Company specific events such as the potential impacts of legal and regulatory matters discussed in Note 16 and Note 17, including the estimated impacts of the proposed revised stipulation in the PNM NM 2016 Rate Case, the impacts of potential outcomes of the matters appealed to the NM Supreme Court under the NM 2015 Rate Case, and the impacts of changes in PNM’s resource needs based on PNM’s 2017 IRP. These evaluations also considered changes in TNMP’s regulatory environment such as the PUCT’s proposed amendments to the interim transmission cost of service filing rule, as well as potential outcomes associated with TNMP’s general rate case filing, which the Company anticipates filing in May 2018. The qualitative analyses also considered market and macroeconomic factors including changes in anticipated growth rates, anticipated changes in the WACC, and changes in discount rates. The Company also evaluated its stock price relative to historical performance, industry peers, and to major market indices, including an evaluation of the Company’s market capitalization relative to the carrying valu

B - 120

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

e of its reporting units. Based on an evaluation of these and other factors, the Company determined it is not more likely than not that the April 1, 2017 carrying values of PNM or TNMP exceed their fair values.
For its annual evaluations performed as of April 1, 2016, PNMR performed quantitative analyses for both the PNM and TNMP reporting units. For the quantitative analyses, a discounted cash flow methodology was primarily used in the quantitative analysis to estimate the fair value of the reporting unit. This analysis requires significant judgments, including estimation of future cash flows, which is dependent on internal forecasts, estimation of long-term growth rates for the business, and determination of appropriate weighted average cost of capitalWACC for each reporting unit. Changes in these estimates and assumptions could materially affect the determination of fair value and the conclusion of impairment.
The April 1, 20152016 and 20142015 quantitative evaluations for PNM both indicated the fair value of the PNM reporting unit, which has goodwill of $51.6 million, exceeded its carrying value by approximately 25% and 30%. An increase of 0.5% in the expected return on equity capital utilized in discounting the forecasted cash flows, would have reduced the excess of PNM’s fair value over carrying value to approximately 18% and 23% at. The April 1, 2015 and 2014. The 2015 and 2014 qualitative analysis for2016 quantitative evaluation indicated the fair value of the TNMP reporting unit, which has goodwill of $226.7 million, exceeded its carrying value by 32%. An increase of 0.5% in the expected return on equity capital utilized in calculating the WACC used to discount the forecasted cash flows, would have reduced the excess of TNMP’s fair value over carrying value to approximately 21% at April 1, 2016.
The 2015 qualitative analysis for TNMP included the consideration of various reporting unit specific factors as well as industry and macroeconomic factors to determine whether these factors were reasonably likely to have a material impact on the fair value of the reporting unit. Factors considered included the results of the April 1, 2012 quantitative analysis, which indicated that fair value exceeded carrying value of the reporting unit exceeded its carrying value by approximately 26%, current and long-term forecasted financial results, regulatory environment, credit rating, interest rate environment, absolute and relative price of PNMR’s common stock, and operating strategy. TNMP believes it is operating within a generally favorable regulatory environment, its historical and forecasted financial results are positive, and its credit is generally perceived positively. Based on the analysis of the relevant factors, PNMR concluded

B- 115

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

that it iswas more likely than not that the fair value of the TNMP reporting unit exceeds its carrying value. The annual evaluations performed as ofvalue at April 1, 2015 and 2014 did not indicate impairments of the goodwill of any of PNMR’s reporting units. Since the April 1, 2015 annual evaluation, there have been no indications that the fair values of the reporting units with recorded goodwill have decreased below the carrying values.2015.
Prior annual evaluations have not indicated impairments of any of PNMR’s reporting units, except in 2008. During 2008, the market capitalization of PNMR’s common stock was significantly below book value. In addition, a PNMR reporting unit, thatwhich was sold in 2011 was significantly impacted by depressed economic conditions and changes in the market in which it operated. As a result, goodwill impairments of $51.1 million for PNM, $34.5 million for TNMP, and an aggregate of $174.4 million for PNMR were recorded in 2008. Since 2008, the price of PNMR’s common stock has increased, improving the relationship between PNMR’s market capitalization and book value. In addition, improved regulatory treatment has been experienced by PNM in New Mexico and by TNMP in Texas. These factors resulted in more predictable earnings and increased fair values of the reporting units. Since 2008, the annual evaluations have not indicated that the fair values of the reporting units with recorded goodwill have decreased below their carrying values.
 

B - 121

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

(19)Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
AOCI reports a measure for accumulated changes in equity that result from transactions and other economic events other than transactions with shareholders. Information regarding AOCI is as follows:
 Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
 PNM PNMR
 Unrealized Gains on Available-for-Sale Securities 
Pension
Liability
Adjustment
 Total Fair Value Adjustment for Cash Flow Hedges Total
 (In thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2014$28,008
 $(89,763) $(61,755) $
 $(61,755)
 Amounts reclassified from AOCI (pre-tax)(28,531) 5,952
 (22,579) 
 (22,579)
Income tax impact of amounts reclassified11,181
 (2,332) 8,849
 
 8,849
 Other OCI changes (pre-tax)10,998
 (4,405) 6,593
 72
 6,665
Income tax impact of other OCI changes(4,310) 1,726
 (2,584) (28) (2,612)
Net after-tax change(10,662) 941
 (9,721) 44
 (9,677)
Balance at December 31, 201517,346
 (88,822) (71,476) 44
 (71,432)
 Amounts reclassified from AOCI (pre-tax)(22,139) 5,504
 (16,635) 764
 (15,871)
Income tax impact of amounts reclassified8,639
 (2,148) 6,491
 (298) 6,193
 Other OCI changes (pre-tax)778
 (18,501) (17,723) (874) (18,597)
Income tax impact of other OCI changes(304) 7,219
 6,915
 341
 7,256
Net after-tax change(13,026) (7,926) (20,952) (67) (21,019)
Balance at December 31, 20164,320
 (96,748) (92,428) (23) (92,451)
 Amounts reclassified from AOCI (pre-tax)(17,567) 6,452
 (11,115) 581
 (10,534)
Income tax impact of amounts reclassified6,816
 (2,504) 4,312
 (225) 4,087
 Other OCI changes (pre-tax)28,160
 3,618
 31,778
 1,000
 32,778
Income tax impact of other OCI changes(10,927) (919) (11,846) (388) (12,234)
Net after-tax change6,482
 6,647
 13,129
 968
 14,097
Reclassification of stranded income taxes to retained earnings Note 112,367
 (20,161) (17,794) 208
 (17,586)
Balance at December 31, 2017$13,169
 $(110,262) $(97,093) $1,153
 $(95,940)
Pre-tax amounts reclassified from AOCI related to “Unrealized Gains on Available-for-Sale Securities” are included in “Gains on available-for-sale securities” in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. Pre-tax amounts reclassified from AOCI related to “Pension Liability Adjustment” are reclassified to “Operating Expenses – Administrative and general” in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. Pre-tax amounts reclassified from AOCI related to “Fair Value Adjustment for Cash Flow Hedges” are reclassified to “Interest Charges” in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. An insignificant amount is included in capitalized interest. The income tax impacts of all amounts reclassified from AOCI are included in “Income Taxes” in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings.


B - 122

PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARIES
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015

(20) Quarterly Operating Results (Unaudited)
Unaudited operating results by quarters for 20152017 and 20142016 are presented below. In the opinion of management of the Company, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) necessary for a fair statement of the results of operations for such periods have been included.
Quarter Ended Quarter Ended 
March 31 June 30 September 30 December 31 March 31 June 30 September 30 December 31
(1) 
(In thousands, except per share amounts) (In thousands, except per share amounts) 
PNMR                
2015        
2017        
Operating revenues$330,178
 $362,320
 $419,900
 $332,605
 
Operating income55,960
 85,105
 142,484
 22,936
 
Net earnings (loss)26,446
 41,231
 78,327
 (50,585) 
Net earnings (loss) attributable to PNMR22,862
 37,555
 73,739
 (54,282) 
Net earnings (loss) attributable to PNMR per common share:        
Basic0.29
 0.47
 0.92
 (0.68) 
Diluted0.29
 0.47
 0.92
 (0.68) 
2016        
Operating revenues$332,868
 $352,887
 $417,433
 $335,894
 $310,961
 $315,391
 $400,374
 $336,225
 
Operating income49,569
 72,414
 121,505
 (119,138)
(1) 
41,508
 64,822
 108,071
 63,584
 
Net earnings17,852
 35,655
 64,855
 (87,284) 13,965
 30,952
 58,556
 28,423
 
Net earnings attributable to PNMR14,340
 31,673
 61,045
 (91,418) 10,546
 27,076
 54,418
 24,809
 
Net Earnings Attributable to PNMR per Common Share:        
Basic0.18
 0.40
 0.77
 (1.15) 
Diluted0.18
 0.40
 0.76
 (1.15) 
2014        
Operating revenues$328,897
 $346,160
 $413,951
 $346,845
 
Operating income48,753
 71,296
 116,799
 62,849
 
Net earnings16,131
 33,181
 59,486
 22,111
 
Net earnings attributable to PNMR12,468
 29,141
 55,653
 18,992
 
Net Earnings Attributable to PNMR per Common Share:        
Net earnings attributable to PNMR per common share:        
Basic0.16
 0.37
 0.70
 0.24
 0.13
 0.34
 0.68
 0.32
 
Diluted0.16
 0.36
 0.69
 0.24
 0.13
 0.34
 0.68
 0.31
 
PNM                
2015        
2017        
Operating revenues$261,940
 $275,450
 $333,437
 $260,368
 $251,558
 $276,097
 $327,254
 $249,321
 
Operating income31,655
 47,179
 93,710
 (139,164) 38,331
 59,164
 113,252
 1,778
 
Net earnings (loss)13,502
 25,363
 53,056
 (92,245) 20,110
 30,476
 65,283
 (28,456) 
Net earnings (loss) attributable to PNM10,122
 21,513
 49,378
 (96,247) 16,658
 26,932
 60,827
 (32,021) 
2014        
2016        
Operating revenues$262,736
 $275,704
 $334,993
 $274,481
 $235,606
 $233,346
 $311,276
 $255,685
 
Operating income31,304
 49,806
 90,615
 40,988
 23,297
 41,760
 80,057
 42,976
 
Net earnings11,205
 24,254
 49,052
 16,942
 7,561
 19,793
 44,990
 19,594
 
Net earnings attributable to PNM7,674
 20,346
 45,351
 13,955
 4,274
 16,049
 40,984
 16,112
 
TNMP                
2015        
2017        
Operating revenues$70,928
 $77,437
 $83,996
 $75,526
 $78,620
 $86,223
 $92,646
 $83,284
 
Operating income17,931
 24,729
 27,667
 19,706
 17,965
 26,286
 29,474
 19,879
 
Net earnings7,694
 11,865
 13,689
 8,715
 7,604
 12,204
 14,727
 1,024
 
2014        
2016        
Operating revenues$66,161
 $70,456
 $78,958
 $72,364
 $75,355
 $82,045
 $89,098
 $80,540
 
Operating income17,262
 21,265
 25,873
 21,188
 18,554
 23,375
 28,359
 21,353
 
Net earnings6,803
 9,534
 12,355
 9,115
 7,456
 10,508
 13,853
 9,855
 

(1)Includes an expense of $165.7 million related to Reflects the BART determination for SJGS discussed in Note 16.

B- 116



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
PNM Resources, Inc.:
Under date of February 26, 2016, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets of PNM Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, consolidated statements of comprehensive income, consolidated statementsimpacts of changes in equity,federal income tax rate of $57.5 million, $29.6 million, and consolidated statements$7.9 million for PNMR, PNM, and TNMP (Note 11); also reflects a pre-tax regulatory disallowance resulting from PNM’s NM 2016 Rate Case of cash flows$27.9 million for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2015. In connection with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also audited the related financial statement schedules as listed within Item 15. These financial statement schedules are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statement schedules based on our audits.PNMR and PNM (Note 17).
In our opinion, such financial statement schedules, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Albuquerque, New Mexico
February 26, 2016


B- 117



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Public Service Company of New Mexico:
Under date of February 26, 2016, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets of Public Service Company of New Mexico and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of earnings (loss), consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss), consolidated statements of changes in equity, and consolidated statements of cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2015. In connection with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also audited the related consolidated financial statement schedule as listed within Item 15. The financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits.
In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Albuquerque, New Mexico
February 26, 2016

B- 118



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


The Board of Directors and Stockholder
Texas-New Mexico Power Company:
Under date of February 26, 2016, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets of Texas-New Mexico Power Company and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, consolidated statements of comprehensive income, consolidated statements of changes in equity, and consolidated statements of cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2015. In connection with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also audited the related financial statement schedule as listed within Item 15. The financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits.
In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Albuquerque, New Mexico
February 26, 2016


B- 119



SCHEDULE I
PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF PARENT COMPANY
STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS
 
Year ended December 31,Year ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Operating Revenues$
 $
 $
$
 $
 $
Operating Expenses1,221
 650
 941
2,902
 2,871
 1,221
Operating income (loss)(1,221) (650) (941)(2,902) (2,871) (1,221)
Other Income and Deductions:          
Equity in earnings of subsidiaries27,352
 124,543
 116,634
111,877
 122,252
 27,352
Other income747
 622
 769
1,181
 1,711
 747
Other deductions(8,275) (13,650) (22,825)
Net other income (deductions)19,824
 111,515
 94,578
Net other income and deductions113,058
 123,963
 28,099
Interest Charges12,490
 8,102
 8,275
Earnings Before Income Taxes18,603
 110,865
 93,637
97,666
 112,990
 18,603
Income Tax Expense (Benefit)2,963
 (5,389) (6,870)17,792
 (3,859) 2,963
Net Earnings$15,640
 $116,254
 $100,507
$79,874
 $116,849
 $15,640



B- 120B - 123



SCHEDULE I
PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF PARENT COMPANY
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
 
Year Ended December 31,Year Ended December 31,
2015 2014 20132017 2016 2015
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Cash Flows From Operating Activities:     
Net earnings$15,640
 $116,254
 $100,507
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash flows from operating activities:     
Depreciation and amortization509
 680
 4,192
Deferred income tax expense(79,526) (69,442) (51,820)
Equity in (earnings) of subsidiaries(27,352) (124,543) (116,634)
Loss on reacquired debt
 
 3,253
Stock based compensation expense4,863
 5,931
 5,320
Changes in certain assets and liabilities:     
Other current assets7,664
 22,955
 28,460
Other assets69,443
 51,644
 46,558
Accounts payable370
 (88) 620
Accrued interest and taxes4,823
 (7,683) (9,266)
Other current liabilities
 (1,668) (146)
Other liabilities4,941
 28,704
 (27,756)
Net cash flows from operating activities1,375
 22,744
 (16,712)
Net Cash Flows From Operating Activities$(7,814) $5,702
 $1,375
Cash Flows From Investing Activities:          
Utility plant additions368
 (474) (960)(180) 341
 368
Investments in subsidiaries(175,000) 
 (13,800)(50,000) (98,343) (175,000)
Cash dividends from subsidiaries127,688
 46,599
 158,772
105,084
 35,959
 127,688
Net cash flows from investing activities(46,944) 46,125
 144,012
54,904
 (62,043) (46,944)
Cash Flows From Financing Activities:          
Short-term loan50,000
 
 

 100,000
 50,000
Short-term borrowings (repayments), net41,000
 600
 (37,600)
Repayment of short-term loan
 (150,000) 
Revolving credit facility borrowings (repayments), net42,600
 84,500
 41,000
Long-term borrowings150,000
 
 

 100,000
 150,000
Repayment of long-term debt(118,766) 
 (29,468)
 
 (118,766)
Proceeds from stock option exercise5,619
 6,999
 4,618
1,739
 7,028
 5,619
Purchases to satisfy awards of common stock(17,720) (17,319) (13,807)(13,929) (15,451) (17,720)
Dividends paid(63,723) (58,940) (50,980)(77,264) (70,095) (63,723)
Other, net(782) 81
 
(269) (28) (782)
Net cash flows from financing activities45,628
 (68,579) (127,237)(47,123) 55,954
 45,628
Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents59
 290
 63
(33) (387) 59
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period382
 92
 29
54
 441
 382
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period$441
 $382
 $92
$21
 $54
 $441
Supplemental Cash Flow Disclosures:          
Interest paid, net of amounts capitalized$7,559
 $12,152
 $14,510
$10,899
 $5,906
 $7,559
Income taxes paid (refunded), net$(730) $(2,014) $22,378
$
 $
 $(730)

B- 121B - 124



SCHEDULE I
PNM RESOURCES, INC.
CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF PARENT COMPANY
BALANCE SHEETS
 
December 31,December 31,
2015 20142017 2016
(In thousands)(In thousands)
Assets      
Cash and cash equivalents$441
 $382
$21
 $54
Intercompany receivables102,676
 107,619
96,227
 92,234
Income taxes receivable
 29
1,818
 
Other, net524
 548
1,937
 233
Total current assets103,641
 108,578
100,003
 92,521
Property, plant and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation of $11,276 and $10,25126,707
 27,076
Property, plant and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation of $13,229 and $12,29126,546
 26,366
Investment in subsidiaries1,822,593
 1,757,650
2,056,198
 1,986,276
Other long-term assets81,168
 78,347
66,090
 79,314
Total long-term assets1,930,468
 1,863,073
2,148,834
 2,091,956
$2,034,109
 $1,971,651
$2,248,837
 $2,184,477
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity      
Short-term debt$191,600
 $100,600
$265,600
 $226,100
Short-term debt-affiliate8,819
 8,819
11,919
 8,819
Current maturities of long-term debt
 118,607
249,979
 
Accrued interest and taxes7,780
 2,816
1,661
 1,333
Other current liabilities18,282
 16,320
21,274
 19,374
Total current liabilities226,481
 247,162
550,433
 255,626
Long-term debt149,860
 

 249,895
Other long-term liabilities2,955
 2,943
3,151
 3,004
Total liabilities379,296
 250,105
553,584
 508,525
Common stock (no par value; 120,000,000 shares authorized; issued and outstanding 79,653,624 shares)1,166,465
 1,173,845
1,157,665
 1,163,661
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax(71,432) (61,755)(95,940) (92,451)
Retained earnings559,780
 609,456
633,528
 604,742
Total common stockholders’ equity1,654,813
 1,721,546
1,695,253
 1,675,952
$2,034,109
 $1,971,651
$2,248,837
 $2,184,477

See Notes 6, 7, 14, and 16 for information regarding commitments, contingencies, and maturities of long-term debt.

See Notes 6 and 11 regarding reclassifications of December 31, 2014 balances related to the adoption of new accounting standards during 2015.

B- 122B - 125



SCHEDULE II
PNM RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
 
     Additions Deductions  
 Description 
Balance at
beginning of
year
 
Charged to
costs and
expenses
 
Charged to
other
accounts
 Write-offs and other 
Balance at
end of year
     (In thousands)  
 Allowance for doubtful accounts, year ended December 31:          
 2013 $1,751
 $2,849
 $
 $3,177
 $1,423
 2014 $1,423
 $3,267
 $
 $3,224
 $1,466
 2015 $1,466
 $3,358
 $
 $3,427
 $1,397
     Additions Deductions  
 Description 
Balance at
beginning of
year
 
Charged to
costs and
expenses
 
Charged to
other
accounts
 Write-offs and other 
Balance at
end of year
     (In thousands)  
 Allowance for doubtful accounts, year ended December 31:          
 2015 $1,466
 $3,358
 $
 $3,427
 $1,397
 2016 $1,397
 $2,885
 $
 $3,073
 $1,209
 2017 $1,209
 $2,619
 $
 $2,747
 $1,081

 

B- 123B - 126



SCHEDULE II
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO AND SUBSIDIARY
A WHOLLY OWNEDWHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
 
     Additions Deductions  
 Description 
Balance at
beginning of
year
 
Charged to
costs and
expenses
 
Charged to
other
accounts
 Write-offs 
Balance at
end of year
     (In thousands)  
 Allowance for doubtful accounts, year ended December 31:          
 2013 $1,751
 $2,864
 $
 $3,192
 $1,423
 2014 $1,423
 $3,275
 $
 $3,232
 $1,466
 2015 $1,466
 $3,344
 $
 $3,413
 $1,397
     Additions Deductions  
 Description 
Balance at
beginning of
year
 
Charged to
costs and
expenses
 
Charged to
other
accounts
 Write-offs 
Balance at
end of year
     (In thousands)  
 Allowance for doubtful accounts, year ended December 31:          
 2015 $1,466
 $3,344
 $
 $3,413
 $1,397
 2016 $1,397
 $2,871
 $
 $3,059
 $1,209
 2017 $1,209
 $2,615
 $
 $2,743
 $1,081
 


B- 124B - 127



SCHEDULE II
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
A WHOLLY OWNEDWHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PNM RESOURCES, INC.
VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
 
   Additions Deductions     Additions Deductions  
Description 
Balance at
beginning of
year
 
Charged to
costs and
expenses
 
Charged to
other
accounts
 Write-offs 
Balance at
end of year
 
Balance at
beginning of
year
 
Charged to
costs and
expenses
 
Charged to
other
accounts
 Write-offs 
Balance at
end of year
   (In thousands)     (In thousands)  
Allowance for doubtful accounts, year ended December 31:                    
2013 $
 $(15) $
 $(15) $
2014 $
 $(8) $
 $(8) $
2015 $
 $14
 $
 $14
 $
 $
 $14
 $
 $14
 $
2016 $
 $14
 $
 $14
 $
2017 $
 $4
 $
 $4
 $



B- 125B - 128



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

PNMR
(a) Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures.
As of the end of the period covered by this annual report, PNMR conducted an evaluation under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Based upon this evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures are effective.effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.
(b) Management’s report on internal control over financial reporting.
“Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting” appears on page B-2. This report is incorporated by reference herein. PNMR’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 20152017 has been audited by KPMG LLP, as an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report which is included herein.
(c) Changes in internal controls.
There have been no changes in PNMR’s internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) during the quarter ended December 31, 20152017 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, PNMR’s internal control over financial reporting.
PNM
(a) Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures.
As of the end of the period covered by this annual report, PNM conducted an evaluation under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Based upon this evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures are effective.effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.
(b) Management’s report on internal control over financial reporting.

“Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting” appears on page B-3. This report is incorporated by reference herein.

(c) Changes in internal controls.

There have been no changes in PNM’s internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) during the quarter ended December 31, 20152017 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, PNM’s internal control over financial reporting.

TNMP

(a) Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures.
As of the end of the period covered by this annual report, TNMP conducted an evaluation under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Based upon this evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures are effective.effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.

C-C - 1



(b) Management’s report on internal control over financial reporting.

“Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting” appears on page B-4. This report is incorporated by reference herein.

(c) Changes in internal controls.

There have been no changes in TNMP’s internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) during the quarter ended December 31, 20152017 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, TNMP’s internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 9B.OTHER INFORMATION

None.
 
PART III

ITEM 10.DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Reference is hereby made to “Proposal 1: Elect NineEight Directors” in PNMR’s Proxy Statement relating to the annual meeting of stockholders to be held on May 17, 201622, 2018 (the “20162018 Proxy Statement”), to PART I, SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM – “EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY” in this Form 10-K, “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance”, “Code of Ethics,” and “Board Committees and Their Functions” – “Audit and Ethics Committee” in the 20162018 Proxy Statement. The Company intends to satisfy the disclosure requirements of Form 8-K relating to amendments to the Company’s code of ethics applicable to its senior executive and financial officers by posting such information on its Internet website. Information about the Company’s website is included under Part I, Item 1 – “Websites.”
PNMR’s common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. As a result, PNMR’s Chief Executive Officer is required to make an annual certification to the New York Stock Exchange stating that she was not aware of any violations by PNMR of the New York Stock Exchange corporate governance listing standards. PNMR’s Chief Executive Officer made the most recent certification to the New York Stock Exchange on June 10, 2015.
ITEM 11.EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Reference is hereby made to “Executive Compensation”, and all subheadings thereunder from “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” to “Change in Control, Termination, Retirement, or Impaction”, “Director Compensation,” and “Board Committees and Their Functions – Compensation and Human Resources Committee / Nominating and Governance Committee – Interlocks and Insider Participation” in the 20162018 Proxy Statement.

ITEM 12.SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
Reference is hereby made to “Ownership of Our Common Stock – Five Percent Shareholders” and “ – Executive Officers and Directors” and “Equity Compensation Plan Information” in the 20162018 Proxy Statement.
 
ITEM 13.CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
Reference is hereby made to “Information About Our Corporate Governance – Related Person Transaction Policy” and “ – Director Independence” in the 20162018 Proxy Statement.
 
ITEM 14.PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES
Reference is hereby made to “Audit and Ethics Committee Report” and “Independent Auditor Fees” in the 20162018 Proxy Statement. Independent auditor fees for PNM and TNMP are reported in the 20162018 Proxy Statement for PNMR. All such fees are fees of PNMR. PNMR charges a management fee to PNM and TNMP that includes an allocation of independent auditor fees.


C-C - 2



PART IV

ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
(a) - 1. See Index to Financial Statements under Part II, Item 8.
  
(a) - 2. Financial Statement Schedules for the years 2015, 2014,2017, 2016, and 20132015 are omitted for the reason that they are not required or the information is otherwise supplied under Part II, Item 8.
  
(a) - 3-A. Exhibits Filed:
    
Exhibit NoDescription
    
10.110.1** TNMPPNMR
10.2**PNMR
10.3PNMR
10.4PNM
10.5**PNMR
10.6**PNMR
    
12.1 PNMR
   
12.2 PNM
   
12.3 TNMP
   
21 PNMR
   
23.1 PNMR
    
23.2 PNM
    
31.1 PNMR
   
31.2 PNMR
   
31.3 PNM
   
31.4 PNM
   
31.5 TNMP
   
31.6 TNMP
   
32.1 PNMR
   
32.2 PNM
   
32.3 TNMP
 
101.INSPNMRXBRL Instance Document
   
101.SCHPNMRXBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document
   
101.CALPNMRXBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document
   
101.DEFPNMRXBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document
   
101.LAB PNMRXBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document
    
101.PRE PNMRXBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document

D - 1



(a) -3- B. Exhibits Incorporated By Reference:
The documents listed below are being filed (as shown above) or have been previously filed on behalf of PNM Resources, PNM or TNMP and are incorporated by reference to the filings set forth below pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 12b-32 and Regulation S-K section 10, paragraph (d).



D- 1



Exhibit No.Description of Exhibit Filed as Exhibit: 
Registrant(s)Registrant
(s)
File No:
       
Articles of Incorporation and By-laws
3.1  3.1 to the Company’sPNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 21, 2008 
1-32462
PNMR
    
3.2  3.1.1 to the Company’sPNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 
1-6986
PNM
    
3.3  3.1.2 to the Company’sTNMP’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 
2-97230
TNMP
    
3.4  3.4 to the Company’s AnnualPNMR’s Current Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20148-K filed October 25, 2017 
1-32462
PNMR
    
3.5  3.1.2 to the Company’sPNM’s Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2002 
1-6986
PNM
    
3.6  3.6 to TNMP’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed June 20, 2013 
2-97230
TNMP
       
Indentures‡
PNMR
4.1  10.2 to PNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 31, 2005 
1-32462
PNMR
    
4.2  10.3 to PNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 31, 2005 
333-32170
PNMR
    
4.3  4.3 to PNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed May 21, 2008 
1-32462
PNMR
    
4.4  4.1 to the Company’sPNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 
1-32462
PNMR
       
PNM      
4.5  4.4 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1998 
1-6986
PNM
    
4.6  4.5 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1998 
1-6986
PNM
    
4.7  4.6 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1998 
1-6986
PNM
      

D - 2



4.8  4.6.1 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999 
1-6986
PNM
    

D- 2



4.9  4.6.2 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 
1-6986
PNM
    
4.10  4.6.3 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 
1-6986
PNM
    
4.11  4.6.4 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 
1-6986
PNM
    
4.12  4.23 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 
1-6986
PNM
    
4.13  10.1 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed July 29, 2010 
1-6986
PNM
    
4.14  10.2 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed July 29, 2010 
1-6986
PNM
       
4.15  4.2 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,June 30, 2011 
1-6986
PNM
       
4.16  4.1 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2012 
1-6986
PNM
       
4.17 4.1 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed September 27, 2016
1-6986
PNM
4.18 4.1 to PNM’s Registration Statement No. 333-53367 
333-53367
PNM
    
4.18 
4.19 4.3 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K Datedfiled August 7, 1998 
1-6986
PNM
    
4.19 
4.20 4.7.1 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 
1-6986
PNM
      

D - 3



4.20
4.21  4.1 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed May 15, 2008 
1-6986
PNM
       
4.214.22  4.3 to the Company’sPNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 
1-6986
PNM
       

D- 3



4.224.23  4.1 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed October 12, 2011 
1-6986
PNM
       
4.234.24  4.2 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed August 11, 2015 
1-6986
PNM
       
TNMP
4.24 
4.25 4.1 to TNMP’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 27, 2009 
2-97230
TNMP
    
4.25 
4.26 4.2 to TNMP’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 27, 2009 
2-97230
TNMP
    
4.26 
4.27 4.3 to TNMP’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 27, 2009 
2-97230
TNMP
    
4.27 
4.28 4.1 to TNMP’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed May 6, 2009 
2-97230
TNMP
    
4.28 
4.29 4.1 to TNMP’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 17, 2010 
2-97230
TNMP
       
4.294.30  4.4 to TNMP’s Quarterly Report Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 
2-97230
TNMP
       
4.304.31  4.1 to TNMP’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed October 6, 2011 
2-97230
TNMP
       
4.314.32  4.1 to TNMP’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed April 3, 2013 
2-97230
TNMP
      
4.324.33 4.1 to TNMP’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed June 27, 2014 
2-97230
TNMP
      
4.334.34  4.1 to TNMP’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed February 10, 2016 
2-97230
TNMP
 
4.354.1 to TNMP’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed August 24, 20172-97230
TNMP

D - 4



Material Contracts
10.2 
10.7 10.1 to the Company’sPNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed October 31, 2011 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.310.8  10.1 to the Company’sPNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.410.9  10.2 to the Company’sPNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 
1-32462
PNMR
       

D- 4



10.510.10  10.1 to the Company’sPNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 17, 2014 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.610.11  10.6 to PNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.710.12 10.1 to PNMR's Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 4, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.1310.1 to PNMR's Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 21, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.1410.1 to PNMR's Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 18, 20171-32462
PNMR
10.1510.2 to PNMR's Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 21, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.1610.3 to PNMR's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20171-32462
PNMR
10.17 10.1 to PNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 21, 2015 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.810.18  10.1 to PNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 9, 2015 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.910.19  10.7 to PNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.1010.20 10.3 to PNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 4, 2016
1-32462
PNMR

D - 5



10.2110.1 to PNMR's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.2210.2 to PNMR's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.2310.5 to PNMR's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.2410.3 to PNMR's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.2510.4 to PNMR's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.2610.1 to PNMR's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.2710.1 to PNM's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 20171-6986
PNM
10.28 10.2 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed October 31, 2011 
1-6986
PNM
       
10.1110.29  10.2 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 
1-6986
PNM
       
10.1210.30  10.2 to the Company’sPNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 17, 2014 
1-6986
PNM
       
10.1310.31  10.110.2 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed January 8, 2014
1-6986
PNM
10.14Term Loan Agreement dated March 5, 2014 among PNM, the lenders identified therein and The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., as administrative agent (repaid on August 12, 2015)10.01 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 5, 2014November 4, 2016 
1-6986
PNM
       
10.1510.32 Term Loan 10.210.1 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 22, 201412, 2017 
1-69871-6986
PNM
       
10.1610.33 Second Amended and Restated Credit 10.1 to TNMP’sPNM's Current Report on Form 8-K filed September 18, 2013July 20, 2017 
2-97230
TNMP
1-6986
PNM
       
10.1710.34 First Amendment to Second 10.210.1 to the Company’s AnnualTNMP’s Current Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20158-K filed September 27, 2017 
2-97230

TNMP
       
10.1810.35  10.1 to TNMP’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 10, 2013 
2-97230
TNMP
       

D- 5D - 6



10.1910.36 10.1 to TNMP’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 21, 2015 
2-97230
TNMP
       
10.20*10.3710.1 to PNM's Current Report on Form 8-K filed June 14, 20172-97230
TNMP
10.38**

 4.3 to PNMR’s Form S-8 Registration Statement filed May 15, 2014
333-195974
PNMR

    
10.21*10.39** 99.1 to PNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed December 15, 2015 
1-32462
PNMR
      
10.22*10.40**PNM Resources, Inc.10.2 to PNMR's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.41** 4.1 to PNM Resources’PNMR’s Form S-8 Registration Statement filed May 20, 2009
333-159361
PNMR
      
10.23*10.42** 10.1 to PNMR’s Current Report Form 8-K filed May 20, 2011 
1-32462
PNMR
      
10.24*10.43** 10.6 to PNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 
1-32462
PNMR
      
10.25*10.44** 10.1 to PNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed May 17, 2012 
1-32462
PNMR
      
10.26*10.45**PNM Resources, Inc. 201410.3 to PNMR's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.46**10.6 to PNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.47** 10.1 to PNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 20142017 
1-32462
PNMR
      
10.27*10.48**PNM Resources, Inc.10.2 to PNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2017
1-32462
PNMR
10.49**10.5 to PNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.50** 10.110.2 to PNMR’sPNMR's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 
1-32462
PNMR
      
10.28*10.51**PNM Resources, Inc. 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan dated March 20, 2014 10.210.4 to PNMR's Annual Report on Form 10-Q10-K for the quarteryear ended MarchDecember 31, 20142016 
1-32462
PNMR
      
10.29*10.52**PNM Resources, Inc. 2013 Long-Term Incentive Plan dated March 29, 201310.2 to PNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2013 
PNMR
 
10.30**PNM Resources, Inc. 2015 Long-Term Incentive Plan dated March 20, 201510.210.1 to the Company Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015
1-32462
PNMR
10.31**Acknowledgment Form for officer performance share awards granted under Second Amended Restated Omnibus Performance Equity Plan dated May 19, 2009, as amended10.4.1 to the Company’sPNMR's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20142017 
1-32462

PNMR
      

D - 7



10.32*
10.53** 10.3 to PNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed May 26, 2009 
1-32462
PNMR
     
10.33*10.54** 10.2 to the Company’sPNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed February 16, 2007 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.34*10.55**Acknowledgement Forms for restricted stock rights awards granted under the Second Amended and Restated Omnibus Performance Equity Plan dated May 19, 2009, as amended10.6 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 
1-32462
PNMR
10.35**Special Performance-Based Retention Award Agreement between PNMR and Patricia K. Collawn dated March 29, 201210.3 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012
1-32462
PNMR

D- 6



10.36**Employee Retention Agreement executed December 9, 2014 between PNMR and Charles N. Eldred 10.2 to PNMR’s Annual Report on For 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.37*10.56** 10.0310.3 to PNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.38*10.57** 10.410.4.2 to PNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.39*10.58**2015 10.1.110.1 to PNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20142016 
1-32462
PNMR
     
10.40*10.59** 10.3 to the Company’sPNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 1, 2011 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.41*10.60** 10.4.3 to PNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.42*10.61**PNM Resources, Inc.10.5 to PNMR's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20171-32462
PNMR
10.62** 10.4 to the Company’sPNMR’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 1, 2011 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.43*10.63**PNM Resources, Inc.10.7 to PNMR's Current Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.64**10.2 to PNMR's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20171-32462
PNMR
10.65** 10.1.2 to PNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.44*10.66**Summary of Executive Time Off Policy Effective January 1, 2006 10.3110.7 to PNMR's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005
1-32462
PNMR
10.45**Amendment to Corporate Policy Absence from Work Policy 125 executed December 16, 201110.6 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended DecemberMarch 31, 20112016 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.46*10.67**PNM Resources, Inc.10.6 to PNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016
1-32462
PNMR
10.68** 10.7 to PNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 
1-32462
PNMR
       

D - 8



10.47*
10.69**PNM Resources, Inc. 10.3 to the Company’sPNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 
1-32462
PNMR
     
10.48*10.70** 10.3 to PNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 
1-32462
PNMR
      
10.49*10.71** 10.8 to PNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 
1-32462
PNMR
      
10.50*10.72**PNM Resources, Inc.10.6 to PNMR's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017
1-32462
PNMR
10.73** 10.7 to the Company’sPNMR’s Quarterly Report in Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 
1-32462
PNMR
     
10.51**PNM Resources, Inc. Director Retainer Plan, dated December 31, 20014.3 to PNM Resources, Inc. Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-8 Registration Statement filed December 31, 2001
333-03289
PNMR

D- 7



10.52**First Amendment dated February 17, 2003 to PNM Resources, Inc. Director Retainer Plan10.40.1 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003
333-32170
PNMR
  
10.53*10.74**PNM Resources 10.24.1 to the Company’sPNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 
333-32170
PNMR
     
10.54*10.75** 10.27 to the Company’sPNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. 
333-32170
PNMR
       
10.55*10.76** 10.5 to the Company’sPNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 
1-32462
PNMR
     
10.56*10.77** 10.10 to PNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008
1-32462
PNMR
10.57**Fourth Amendment to the PNMR Officer Life Insurance Plan effective January 1, 200910.15 to PNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 
1-32462
PNMR
       
10.58*10.78**10.15 to PNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008
1-32462
PNMR
10.79** 10.5 to the Company’sPNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 
1-32462
PNMR
     
10.59*10.80**Executive 10.8810.8 to the Company’sPNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20022016 
333-32170
PNMR
     
10.6010.81**10.9 to PNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20161-32462
PNMR
10.82Supplemental Indenture of Lease dated as of July 19, 1966 between PNM and other participants in the Four Corners Project and the Navajo Indian Tribal Council 4-D to PNM’s Registration Statement No. 2-26116 
2-26116
PNM
    
10.61 
10.83 10.1.1 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1995 
1-6986
PNM
      
10.6210.84  10.1 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 
1-6986
PNM
       

D - 9



10.63
10.85  10.2 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 
1-6986
PNM
       
10.64Water Supply Agreement between the Jicarilla Apache Tribe and Public Service Company of New Mexico, dated July 20, 200010.5 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 200110.86 
1-6986
PNM
10.65Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement among PNM and Arizona Public Service Company, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Tucson Gas & Electric Company and El Paso Electric Company, dated August 23, 19735-T to PNM’s Registration Statement No. 2-50338
2-50338
PNM
10.66Amendments No. 1 through No. 6 to Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement10.8.1 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1991
1-6986
PNM

D- 8



10.67Amendment No. 7 effective April 1, 1982, to the Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement (refiled)10.8.2 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1991
1-6986
PNM
10.68Amendment No. 8 effective September 12, 1983, to the Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement (refiled)10.58 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1993
1-6986
PNM
10.69Amendment No. 9 to Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement dated as of June 12, 1984 (refiled)10.8.4 to PNM’s Annual Report of the Registrant on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1994
1-6986
PNM
10.70Amendment No. 10 dated as of November 21, 1985 and Amendment No. 11 dated as of June 13, 1986 and effective January 10, 1987 to Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement (refiled)10.8.5 to PNM’s Annual Report of the Registrant on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1995
1-6986
PNM
10.71Amendment No. 12 to Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement dated June 14, 1988, and effective August 5, 198819.1 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1990
1-6986
PNM
10.72Amendment No. 13 to the Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement dated April 4, 1990, and effective June 15, 199110.8.10 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1990
1-6986
PNM
10.73Amendment No. 14 to the Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement effective June 20, 200010.8.9 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000
1-6986
PNM
10.74Amendment No. 15 to the Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement dated November 29, 2010 and effective January 13, 201110.1 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 1, 2011
1-6986
PNM
10.75Amendment No. 16, effective as of April 28, 2014, to the Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement10.3 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2014
1-6986
PNM
10.76Coal Supply Agreement dated July 1, 2015 between Westmoreland Coal Company and PNM 10.1 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 
1-6986
PNM
    
10.77 
10.8710.4 to PNM's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20171-6986
PNM
10.88 10.2 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 
1-6986
PNM
    
10.78 
10.89 
10.3 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015

 
1-6986
PNM
      
10.7910.90  
10.4 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015

 
1-6986
PNM
    

D- 9



10.80 
10.91 
10.5 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015

1-6986
PNM
10.81San Juan Generation Station Fuel and Capital Funding Agreement dated September 12, 2014 among PNM, Tucson Electric Power Company, The City of Farmington, New Mexico, M-S-R Public Power Agency, The Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico, Southern California Public Power Authority, City of Anaheim, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
10.2 to PNM’s Quarter Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2014

1-6986
PNM
10.82Participation Agreement among PNM, Tucson Electric Power Company and certain financial institutions relating to the San Juan Coal Trust dated as of December 31, 1981 (refiled)10.14 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1992 
1-6986
PNM
       
10.8310.92  10.6110.1 to PNM's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 20171-6986
PNM
10.93Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement among PNM and Arizona Public Service Company, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Tucson Gas & Electric Company and El Paso Electric Company, dated August 23, 19735-T to PNM’s Registration Statement No. 2-50338
2-50338
PNM
10.94Amendments No. 1 through No. 6 to Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement10.8.1 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscalyear ended December 31, 1991
1-6986
PNM
10.95Amendment No. 7 effective April 1, 1982, to the Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement (refiled)10.8.2 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for year ended December 31, 1991
1-6986
PNM

D - 10



10.9610.58 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for year ended December 31, 1993 
1-6986
PNM
     
10.8410.97 Amended and Restated San Juan 10.11910.8.4 to PNM’s QuarterlyAnnual Report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q10-K for the quarteryear ended March 30, 2006December 31, 1994 
1-6986
PNM
       
10.85*10.9810.8.5 to PNM’s Annual Report of the Registrant on Form 10-K for year ended December 31, 1995
1-6986
PNM
10.99Amendment No. 12 to Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement dated June 14, 1988, and effective August 5, 198819.1 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1990
1-6986
PNM
10.100Amendment No. 13 to the Arizona Nuclear Power Project Participation Agreement dated April 4, 1990, and effective June 15, 199110.8.10 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1990
1-6986
PNM
10.10110.8.9 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000
1-6986
PNM
10.10210.1 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 1, 2011
1-6986
PNM
10.10310.3 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2014
1-6986
PNM
10.104* 10.18 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1995 
1-6986
PNM
      
10.8610.105 10.19 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1996 
1-6986
PNM
      
10.8710.106 10.21 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1996 
1-6986
PNM
      
10.88*10.107* 10.3 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 
1-6986
PNM
    
10.89 
10.108 10.22 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1996 
1-6986
PNM
    

D- 10



10.90 
10.109 10.1 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 18, 2014 
1-6986
PNM
       

D - 11



10.91
Sale Agreement (PVNGS Unit 2 Lease) dated as of September 18, 2015, between PNM and CGI Capital, Inc.10.1 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed September 22, 2015
10.110 
1-6986
PNM
10.92Sale Agreement 136 (PVNGS Unit 2 Lease) dated as of November 20, 2015, between PNM and Cypress Verde LLC10.1 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 23, 2015
1-6986
PNM
10.93Sale Agreement 113 (PVNGS Unit 2 Lease) dated as of November 20, 2015, between PNM and Cypress Second PV Partnership10.2 to PNM’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 23, 2015
1-6986
PNM
10.94Master Decommissioning Trust Agreement for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station dated March 15, 1996, between PNM and Mellon Bank, N.A. 10.68 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1996 
1-6986
PNM
    
10.95 
10.111 10.68.1 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1997 
1-6986
PNM
    
10.96 
10.112 10.68.2 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 
1-6986
PNM
    
10.97 
10.113 10.86 to the Company’sPNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 
1-6986
PNM
    
10.98 
10.114 10.134 to the Company’sPNMR’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 
1-32462
PNMR/
TNMP
    
10.99 Consent Decree entered into by PNM on March 9, 2005 relating to the citizen suit under the Clean Air Act and the excess emissions report matter for SJGS10.135 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005
1-6986
PNM
Subsidiaries    
Subsidiaries
21  21 to the Company’sPNMR’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20152017 
1-32462
PNMR
    
Additional Exhibits    
99.1*Participation Agreement dated as of December 16, 1985, among the Owner Participant named therein, First PV Funding Corporation, The First National Bank of Boston, in its individual capacity and as Owner Trustee (under a Trust Agreement dated as of December 16, 1985 with the Owner Participant), Chemical Bank, in its individual capacity and as Indenture Trustee (under a Trust Indenture, Mortgage, Security Agreement and Assignment of Rents dated as of December 16, 1985 with the Owner Trustee), and PNM (Unit 1 transaction), including Appendix A definitions, together with Amendment No. 1 dated July 15, 1986 and Amendment No. 2 dated November 18, 1986 (refiled) 99.2 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1995 
1-6986
PNM
      

D- 11



99.2  99.5 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1996 
1-6986
PNM
    
99.3 99.11 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 
1-6986
PNM

D - 12



99.4 99.14 to PNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 
1-6986
PNM
    
99.5 99.19 to PNM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 
1-6986
PNM
    
99.6 10.6 to the Company’sPNM’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 
1-6986
PNM

* One or more additional documents, substantially identical in all material respects to this exhibit, have been entered into, relating to one or more additional sale and leaseback transactions. Although such additional documents may differ in other respects (such as dollar amounts and percentages), there are no material details in which such additional documents differ from this exhibit.

** Designates each management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement required to be identified pursuant to paragraph 3 of Item 15(a) of Form 10-K.

‡      Certain instruments defining the rights of holders of long-term debt of the registrants included in the financial statements of registrants filed herewith have been omitted because the total amount of securities authorized thereunder does not exceed 10% of the total assets of registrants. The registrants hereby agree to furnish a copy of any such omitted instrument to the SEC upon request.


ITEM 16. FORM 10-K SUMMARY

None.


D- 12D - 13



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) 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.
    PNM RESOURCES, INC.
    (Registrant)
    
Date:February 26, 2016March 1, 2018By /s/ P. K. Collawn
    P. K. Collawn
    
Chairman, President, and
Chief Executive 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.
Signature  CapacityDate
   
/s/ P. K. Collawn  Principal Executive Officer and DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
P. K. Collawn    
Chairman, President, and    
Chief Executive Officer    
   
/s/ C. N. Eldred  Principal Financial OfficerFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
C. N. Eldred    
Executive Vice President and    
Chief Financial Officer    
   
/s/ J. D. Tarry  Principal Accounting OfficerFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
J. D. Tarry    
Vice President, CorporateFinance and Controller and
Chief Information Officer    
   
/s/ A. E. ArchuletaN.P. Becker  DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
A. E. ArchuletaN. P. Becker    
   
/s/ E. R. Conley  DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
E. R. Conley    
   
/s/ A. J. Fohrer DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
A. J. Fohrer   
    
/s/ S. M. Gutierrez  DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
S. M. Gutierrez    
   
/s/ M. T. Mullarkey  DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
M. T. Mullarkey
/s/ R. R. NordhausDirectorFebruary 26, 2016
R. R. Nordhaus    
   
/s/ D. K. Schwanz  DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
D. K. Schwanz    
   
/s/ B. W. Wilkinson  DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
B. W. Wilkinson    

E-1E - 1



SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) 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.
    PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO
    (Registrant)
    
Date:February 26, 2016March 1, 2018By /s/ P. K. Collawn
    P. K. Collawn
    
President and
Chief Executive 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.
 
Signature  CapacityDate
   
/s/ P. K. Collawn  Principal Executive Officer and Chairman of the BoardFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
P. K. Collawn   
President and    
Chief Executive Officer    
   
/s/ C. N. Eldred  Principal Financial Officer and DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
C. N. Eldred   
Executive Vice President and    
Chief Financial Officer    
   
/s/ J. D. Tarry  Principal Accounting OfficerFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
J. D. Tarry    
Vice President, CorporateFinance and Controller and
Chief Information Officer    
   
/s/ R. N. Darnell  DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
R. N. Darnell    
    
/s/ R. E. TalbotC. M. Olson  DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
R. E. TalbotC. M. Olson    


E-2E - 2



SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) 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.
    TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER COMPANY
    (Registrant)
    
Date:February 26, 2016March 1, 2018By /s/ P. K. Collawn
    P. K. Collawn
    Chief Executive 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.
 
Signature  CapacityDate
   
/s/ P. K. Collawn  Principal Executive Officer and Chairman of the BoardFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
P. K. Collawn   
Chief Executive Officer    
   
/s/ C. N. Eldred  Principal Financial Officer and DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
C. N. Eldred    
Executive Vice President and   
Chief Financial Officer   
    
/s/ J. D. Tarry  Principal Accounting OfficerFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
J. D. Tarry   
Vice President, Finance and
Controller    
   
/s/ R. N. Darnell  DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
R. N. Darnell    
   
/s/ R. E. TalbotC. M. Olson  DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
R. E. TalbotC. M. Olson    
    
/s/ J. N. Walker  DirectorFebruary 26, 2016March 1, 2018
J. N. Walker    


E-3E - 3