Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the PNM Resources First Quarter Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now turn the call over to your host, Jimmie Blotter. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Stephanie, and thank you, everyone, for joining us this morning for the PNM Resources First Quarter 2013 Earnings Conference Call. Please note that the presentation for the conference call and other supporting documents are available on our website at www.pnmresources.com. Joining me today are PMM Resources, Chairman, President and CEO, Pat Vincent-Collawn; and Chuck Eldred, our CFO, as well as several other members of our executive management team. Before I turn the call over to Pat, I need to remind you that some of the information provided this morning should be considered forward-looking statements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We caution you that all of the forward-looking statements are based upon current expectations and estimates, and that PNM Resources assumes no obligation to update this information. For a detailed discussion of factors affecting PNM Resources results, please refer to our current and future annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, as well as reports on form 8-K filed with the SEC. And with that, I will turn the call over to Pat.

Thank you, Jimmie. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us this morning for our first quarter 2013 earnings call. I will be providing a brief overview of our first quarter performance, load and economic conditions, a regulatory update and some information on the BART timeline. I'll start the presentation on Slide 4. This morning, we released our first quarter ongoing earnings at $0.18 per diluted share compared with 2012 results of $0.17. On a GAAP basis, we are reporting $0.13 per diluted share compared with 2012 results of $0.21. The difference in the quarter-over-quarter GAAP numbers is primarily related to the mark-to-market impact of the hedges on PV3 pricing. In 2013, we had losses of $0.04 compared with gains of $0.02 in 2012. The upgrade on April 5 from Standard & Poor's brought the corporate credit rating on our holding company to investment-grade. It's been a long-time goal to return all of our entities to investment-grade, and achieving this milestone reflects years of focused efforts by our employees. As most of you know, PNM Resources lost its investment-grade rating in 2008 when we had regulatory challenges, as well as the competitive business. Consistent with our strategy to move toward a pure-play regulated utility, we focused on managing through the regulatory challenges and also exited the competitive business in 2011. These actions greatly reduced the risk profile of the company and strengthened our financial metrics. S&P now has all of our entities at investment-grade with a stable outlook. This is beneficial on many levels, including allowing us to access financing at lower cost, which helps keep customer rates low. In our release today, we also affirmed 2013 guidance of $1.32 to $1.42 per diluted share. Next, let's take a look at the economic growth conditions in New Mexico and…

Thank you, Pat, and good morning, everyone. We'll begin on Slide 9. First quarter ongoing results were up $0.01 compared to the first quarter 2012. TNMP and Corporate/Other were each up $0.01 while PNM was down $0.01. Moving to slide 10. There were a number of drivers for PNM. Outage costs were $0.02 lower compared to last year. This was caused primarily by lower planned outage expenses at San Juan. Rate relief provided $0.02. This is comprised of $0.01 for the FERC generation rate relief that went into effect in April 2012 related to the Navopache contract and $0.01 for the renewable energy rider that was implemented in August of 2012. Weather was also a positive driver, adding $0.02 to earnings. Heating degree days for PNM were 13% higher than last year and 6% higher than normal. Higher PV3 pricing also contributed $0.01. This was driven in large part by an opportunity that we had to optimize the hedge position for this year. I will discuss this further in conjunction with 2013 guidance. AFUDC was down a $0.01 due to a slight decrease in capital expenditures along with a lower AFUDC rate. Higher depreciation expense from increased plant additions during 2012 lowered PNM's earnings by $0.01. As you are aware, we saw some weakness in load during the quarter. This resulted in a $0.04 decrease. While the quarter did not produce great results with respect to load, specifically, we are confident that we will be within our guidance range at PNM for 2013. I'll provide more details on our plans in connection with the guidance discussion. Now moving to TNMP. We are seeing load move in the opposite direction, up $0.01 compared to last year. Rate relief for TCOS filings also improved the results by $0.01. We also considered a…

Thank you, Chuck. We'll wrap up today's call with the checklist for 2013. 4 months into the year, we are still strongly focused on executing our goals. We are committed to pursuing successful outcomes for some key activities for the year, including the BART agreement, improving our FERC earnings and taking advantage of the TCOS filings in Texas. We already have a successful TCOS filing for the year and these can be filed twice a year so we're leaving this box unchecked until we evaluate the opportunity for another TCOS filing later this year. Our core operations of keeping plants up and running and the power on remains a key focus. For our base load plants, forced outage hours are 22% lower than Q1 of last year. However, Unit 1 just completed the shortest refueling outage in that plant's history, with the outage less than 30 days. Our kudos go to APS on that great performance. And we continue to watch our cost as Chuck spoke about. We're continuing to undertake efforts to manage our businesses well. Operator, we can start the question-and-answer portion now.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Paul Fremont with Jefferies. Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies & Company, Inc., Research Division: Just sort of focusing on the load growth. A 1.9% decline in the first quarter reduced EPS that had PSNM by $0.04. If you're projecting sort of a 1% decline for the year, in the remaining quarters, what type of an EPS impact for the remaining 3 quarters would that be?

Yes, Paul, this is Chuck. If we -- the sensitivity that we'd use around the decrease in load growth, anywhere from negative 1% could be as much as $0.06. So we're certainly anticipating that sensitivity. In fact, in that end, as we think about the mitigation plans that have built contingencies around that particular impact, once we began to see the trend moving in that direction, but as I said this is only 13% of earnings for the first quarter so we're really looking to see how things work towards -- as we progress with the summer months and the third quarter. But again, regardless of what happens, as I mentioned, we'll mitigate the impact of this and then look at the longer-term implications of how we address load if we don't see some improvements either through rate case or other aspects that we've got in our plans right now. Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies & Company, Inc., Research Division: And is that $0.06 for the remaining 9 months, for the full remaining 9 months?

If you take the full impact of 1%, then it could be as much as $0.06 year-over-year plus the impact of what you have when you look at 1.9% now in addition to that could, it be another $0.06 potentially. Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies & Company, Inc., Research Division: Okay. And then the second question I have is the timing of your filing for replacement power cost. Given an 18-month forward-looking test year, if you were to file in the first quarter next year, would you be able to capture any of the cost of what that replacement power would be or since it would not really come into play until the beginning of 18, would the case essentially -- at least for replacement power have to be filed at a later date?

Paul, a lot of that is open for discussion with the staff. I mean, technically, we don't need the replacement power until we shut down those units at San Juan, but that's why we're taking a comprehensive look at what these filings are like. We also don't want great shock for customers. So as we go through and talk about these, we'll see if some of the replacement power costs come in earlier, but we haven't decided yet right now. Paul B. Fremont - Jefferies & Company, Inc., Research Division: Okay. So in another words, that case then theoretically could really be more like 2 cases, right? One for the recovery of the remaining net book value investment in San Juan coming first and then another potential case to recover replacement generation?

It could definitely be that, Paul.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Justin McCann with S&P Capital IQ. Justin C. McCann - S&P Equity Research: You say the economy appears to be stabilizing, which is good, in Albuquerque. Has there been any impact at all from sequestration? And also, has there been any progress on tax reform legislation?

Let me answer the last one first. Yes, there has been corporate tax reform at the very last hour, actually about the last 2 minutes of the legislative session. The legislature passed and the Governor has signed a tax reform that lowers the corporate income tax rate and that also gives us a single weighted sales factor, which was very critical to Intel, for example, and their ability to expand manufacturing. So that's been very much a positive for the state. We've already seeing some attention from some businesses looking into the state. In terms of sequestration, we have yet to see any job loss here in New Mexico. What we've seen is for the civilian contractors at the base, many of them are working one less day every other week. So we haven't seen unemployment go up, we haven't seen job loss, but I think that's part of what got -- the lowdown is that people are just being more cautious. The credit unions in town are stretching out their mortgage payments for these folks and everybody's just kind of trying to help them through until we get sequestered done, but no job loss yet. Justin C. McCann - S&P Equity Research: And one question for Chuck. Chuck, how does the improved power market environment kind of weigh into your thinking about your options regarding Palo 33 into rate base -- putting Palo 33 and to rate base?

I think there are 2 ways to look at that. First of all, as we all know, our strategy is to be a pure regulated business and that's still unregulated assets. So the long term view of that would be to continue to work towards incorporating that asset within the regulatory rate base. And even though power prices are starting to move a little bit more positive, we're still not had a breakeven point at the low $40 per megawatt hour and even at a 10% return, getting closer to $50-megawatt hour. So we're not anywhere close to that at this point but, again, I think strategically, we'd like to see that ultimately put in the rate base and that will be the direction we'll continue to work towards.

And I'm currently showing no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back over to Pat Vincent-Collawn for closing remarks.

Thank you. And again, thank you, all, for joining us today on this first quarter earnings call. We look forward to speaking with you all in the near future. Have a great day.