AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER CO INC

Previous wording

•Approximately 40,000 circuit miles of transmission lines, including approximately 2,200 circuit miles of 765 kV lines, the backbone of the electric interconnection grid in the eastern United States.

Current wording

•Approximately 40,000 circuit miles of transmission lines, including approximately 2,100 circuit miles of 765 kV lines, the backbone of the electric interconnection grid in the eastern United States.

Previous wording

Earnings Attributable to AEP Common Shareholders decreased from $2.3 billion in 2022 to $2.2 billion in 2023 primarily due to:

Current wording

Earnings Attributable to AEP Common Shareholders increased from $2.2 billion in 2023 to $3.0 billion in 2024 primarily due to:

Previous wording

•Unfavorable regulatory decisions in Texas, West Virginia and at FERC.

Current wording

•Unfavorable regulatory decisions in Texas, West Virginia and at FERC in 2023.

Previous wording

(b)Forecasted percentage change for the year ended December 31, 2024 compared to the year ended December 31, 2023.

Current wording

(b)Forecasted percentage change for the year ending December 31, 2025 compared to the year ended December 31, 2024.

Previous wording

AEP has received regulatory approvals from various state regulatory commissions to acquire approximately 2,811 MWs of owned renewable generation facilities, totaling approximately $6.6 billion, in addition to 377 MWs of renewable purchase power agreements, as included in the following table:

Current wording

AEP has received regulatory approvals from various state regulatory commissions to acquire approximately 2,303 MWs of owned renewable generation facilities, totaling approximately $5.5 billion. The estimated cost of these facilities are included in the Budgeted Capital Expenditures disclosure included in the Financial Condition section below. In addition, AEP has received regulatory approvals for 637 MWs of renewable PPAs. The following table summarizes regulatory approvals received for active renewable projects as of December 31, 2024:

Previous wording

Significant Renewable Generation Requests for Proposal (RFP)

Current wording

Significant Generation Requests for Proposal (RFP)

Previous wording

As part of AEP’s transition to diversify the company’s regulated generation resources and build its renewable generation portfolio, RFPs have been issued in order to satisfy the need for additional capacity resources. The table below includes RFPs recently issued for both owned and purchased power generation. Unless otherwise noted, RFPs issued are all-source solicitations for accredited capacity with consideration made for renewable projects. Projects selected will be subject to regulatory approval.

Current wording

The table below includes active RFPs issued for both owned and purchased power generation. Projects selected will be subject to regulatory approval.

Previous wording

On December 14, 2023, the PUCT approved a preliminary order stating the PUCT will not address SWEPCo’s request that would allow the PUCT to find cause to allow SWEPCo to exceed the Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap in the current remand proceeding. As a result of the PUCT’s approval of the preliminary order, SWEPCo believes it is probable the PUCT will disallow capitalized AFUDC in excess of the Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap and recorded a pretax, non-cash disallowance of $86 million in the fourth quarter of 2023. Such determination may reduce SWEPCo’s future revenues by approximately $15 million on an annual basis. On December 21, 2023, SWEPCo filed a motion with the PUCT for reconsideration of the preliminary order. In January 2024, the PUCT denied the motion for reconsideration of the preliminary order.

Current wording

In December 2023, the PUCT approved a preliminary order stating the PUCT will not address SWEPCo’s request that would allow the PUCT to find cause to allow SWEPCo to exceed the Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap in the current remand proceeding. As a result of the PUCT’s approval of the preliminary order, SWEPCo recorded a pretax, non-cash probable disallowance of $86 million in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Previous wording

The Registrants transitioned to stand-alone treatment of NOLCs in its PJM and SPP transmission formula rates beginning with the 2022 projected transmission revenue requirements and 2021 true-up to actual transmission revenue requirements and provided notice of this change in informational filings made with the FERC. Stand-alone treatment of the NOLCs for transmission formula rates increased the annual revenue requirements for years 2023, 2022 and 2021 by $60 million, $69 million and $78 million, respectively.

Current wording

The Registrants transitioned to stand-alone treatment of NOLCs in its PJM and SPP transmission formula rates beginning with the 2022 projected transmission revenue requirements and 2021 true-up to actual transmission revenue requirements, and provided notice of this change in informational filings made with the FERC. Stand-alone treatment of the NOLCs for transmission formula rates increased the annual revenue requirements for years 2024, 2023, 2022 and 2021 by $52 million, $61 million, $69 million and $78 million, respectively.

Previous wording

In January 2024, the FERC issued two orders, granting the joint customers’ challenges related to stand-alone treatment of NOLCs in the 2021 Transmission Formula Rates of the AEP transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM and SPP. The FERC directed the AEP transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM and SPP to provide refunds with interest on all amounts collected for the 2021 rate year, and for such refunds to be reflected in the annual update for the next rate year. In February 2024, AEPSC on behalf of the AEP transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM and SPP filed requests with the FERC that it grant rehearing and reverse findings in its January 2024 orders or establish hearing procedures to address outstanding factual issues.

Current wording

In January 2024, the FERC issued two orders granting formal challenges by certain unaffiliated customers related to stand-alone treatment of NOLCs in the 2021 Transmission Formula Rates of the AEP transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM and SPP. The FERC directed the AEP transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM and SPP to provide refunds with interest on all amounts collected for the 2021 rate year, and for such refunds to be reflected in the annual update for the next rate year. Accordingly, in the third quarter of 2024, the AEP transmission owning subsidiaries within SPP provided a portion of the 2021 rate year refunds, with the remainder of the refunds expected to be provided in 2025. The AEP transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM are expected to provide their respective refunds for the 2021 rate year in 2025. In February 2024, AEPSC on behalf of the AEP transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM and SPP filed requests for rehearing. In March 2024, the FERC denied AEPSC’s requests for rehearing of the January 2024 orders by operation of law and stated it may address the requests for rehearing in future orders. In March 2024, AEPSC submitted refund compliance reports to the FERC, which preserve the non-finality of the FERC’s January 2024 orders pending further proceedings on rehearing and appeal. In April 2024, AEPSC made filings with the FERC which request that the FERC: (a) reopen the record so that the FERC may take the IRS PLRs received in April 2024 regarding the treatment of stand-alone NOLCs in ratemaking into evidence and consider them in substantive orders on rehearing and (b) stay its January 2024 orders and related compliance filings and refunds to provide time for consideration of the April 2024 IRS PLRs. In May 2024, AEPSC filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking review of the FERC’s January 2024 and March 2024 decisions. In July 2024, the FERC issued orders approving AEPSC’s request to reopen the record for the limited purpose of accepting into the record the IRS PLRs and establish additional briefing procedures. In August 2024, AEPSC filed briefs with the FERC requesting the commission modify or overturn their initial orders.

Previous wording

As a result of the January 2024 FERC orders, the Registrants’ 2022 and 2023 income statements cumulatively reflect a provision for refund for the probable refund of all NOLC revenues included in transmission formula rates for years 2023, 2022 and 2021. The probable refunds to affiliated and nonaffiliated customers are reflected as Deferred Credits and Other Noncurrent Liabilities on the balance sheets. Refunds probable to be received by affiliated companies, resulting in a reduction to affiliated transmission expense, were deferred as an increase to Regulatory Liabilities or a reduction to Regulatory Assets on the balance sheets where management expects that refunds would be returned to retail customers through authorized retail jurisdiction rider mechanisms. The FERC directed cash refunds with interest related to the 2021 rate year to occur through the annual update for the next rate year, which will be invoiced by PJM and SPP primarily in 2025. The Registrants have not yet been directed to make cash refunds related to the 2022 or 2023 rate years.

Current wording

As a result of the January 2024 FERC orders, the Registrants’ balance sheets reflect a liability for the probable refund of all NOLC revenues included in transmission formula rates for years 2024, 2023, 2022 and 2021, with interest. The Registrants have not yet been directed to make cash refunds related to the 2024, 2023 or 2022 rate years. The probable refunds to affiliated and nonaffiliated customers are reflected as Deferred Credits and Other Noncurrent Liabilities on the balance sheets, with the exception of amounts expected to be refunded within one year which are reflected in Other Current Liabilities. Refunds probable to be received by affiliated companies, resulting in a reduction to affiliated transmission expense, were deferred as an increase to Regulatory Liabilities or a reduction to Regulatory Assets on the balance sheets where management expects that refunds would be returned to retail customers through authorized retail jurisdiction rider mechanisms.

Previous wording

In January 2024, the KPSC issued a financing order approving KPCo’s securitization request and concluding that costs requested for recovery were prudently incurred. The KPSC’s financing order includes certain additional requirements related to securitization bond structuring, marketing, placement, and issuance that were not reflected in KPCo’s proposal. As a result, in January 2024, KPCo filed a request for rehearing with the KPSC to clarify certain aspects of these additional requirements. In February 2024, the KPSC denied KPCo’s rehearing requests. In accordance with Kentucky statutory requirements and the financing order, the issuance of the securitized bonds is subject to final review by the KPSC after bond pricing. KPCo expects to proceed with the securitized bond issuance process and to complete the securitization process in the second half of 2024, subject to market conditions. If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Current wording

In January 2024, the KPSC issued a financing order approving KPCo’s request to securitize certain regulatory assets balances as of the time securitization bonds are issued and concluding that costs requested for recovery through securitization were prudently incurred. The KPSC’s financing order includes certain additional requirements related to securitization bond structuring, marketing, placement and issuance that were not reflected in KPCo’s proposal. In accordance with Kentucky statutory requirements and the financing order, the issuance of the securitized bonds is subject to final review by the KPSC after bond pricing. KPCo expects to proceed with the securitized bond issuance process and to complete the securitization process in the first half of 2025, subject to market conditions. As of December 31, 2024, regulatory asset balances expected to be recovered through securitization total $491 million and include: (a) $303 million of plant retirement costs, (b) $79 million of deferred storm costs related to 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 major storms, (c) $50 million of deferred purchased power expenses, (d) $57 million of under-recovered purchased power rider costs and (e) $2 million of deferred issuance-related expenses, including KPSC advisor expenses. If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Previous wording

Litigation Related to Ohio House Bill 6 (HB 6)

Current wording

Ohio House Bill 6 (HB 6)

Previous wording

In July 2019, HB 6, which offered incentives for power-generating facilities with zero or reduced carbon emissions, was signed into law by the Ohio Governor. HB 6 terminated energy efficiency programs as of December 31, 2020, including OPCo’s shared savings revenues of $26 million annually and phased out renewable mandates after 2026. HB 6 also provided for continued recovery of existing renewable energy contracts on a bypassable basis through 2032 and included a provision for continued recovery of OVEC costs through 2030 which is allocated to all electric distribution utility customers in Ohio on a non-bypassable basis. OPCo’s Inter-Company Power Agreement for OVEC terminates in June 2040. In July 2020, an investigation led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office resulted in a federal grand jury indictment of the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, Larry Householder, four other individuals, and Generation Now, an entity registered as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, in connection with an alleged racketeering conspiracy involving the adoption of HB 6. Certain defendants in that case had previously plead guilty and, in March 2023, a federal jury convicted Larry Householder and another individual of participating in the racketeering conspiracy. In 2021, four AEP shareholders filed derivative actions purporting to assert claims on behalf of AEP against certain AEP officers and directors. See “Litigation Related to Ohio House Bill 6” section of Litigation below for additional information.

Current wording

In July 2019, HB 6, which offered incentives for power-generating facilities with zero or reduced carbon emissions, was signed into law by the Ohio Governor. HB 6 terminated energy efficiency programs as of December 31, 2020, including OPCo’s shared savings revenues of $26 million annually and phased out renewable mandates after 2026. HB 6 also provided for continued recovery of existing renewable energy contracts on a bypassable basis through 2032 and included a provision for continued recovery of OVEC costs through 2030 which is allocated to all electric distribution utility customers in Ohio on a non-bypassable basis. OPCo’s Inter-Company Power Agreement for OVEC terminates in June 2040. In July 2020, an investigation led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office resulted in a federal grand jury indictment of the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, Larry Householder, four other individuals, and Generation Now, an entity registered as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, in connection with an alleged racketeering conspiracy involving the adoption of HB 6. Certain defendants in that case had previously plead guilty and, in March 2023, a federal jury convicted Larry Householder and another individual of participating in the racketeering conspiracy. In February 2024, an Ohio grand jury indictment charged certain former FirstEnergy executives and the former PUCO Chairman and related entities with various crimes, including bribery. In January 2025, a federal grand jury indictment charged certain former FirstEnergy executives with a racketeering conspiracy based on similar allegations. In 2021, four AEP shareholders filed derivative actions purporting to assert claims on behalf of AEP against certain AEP officers and directors. In April 2024, AEP reached an agreement with the four shareholders to fully and finally resolve the derivative actions, and the settlement of those actions was approved in October 2024. See “Litigation Related to Ohio House Bill 6” section of Litigation below for additional information.

Previous wording

In March 2021, the Governor of Ohio signed legislation that, among other things, repealed the payments to the nonaffiliated owner of Ohio’s nuclear power plants that were previously authorized under HB 6. The new legislation, House Bill 128, went into effect in May 2021 and leaves unchanged other provisions of HB 6 regarding energy efficiency programs, recovery of renewable energy costs and recovery of OVEC costs. To the extent that the law changes or OPCo is unable to recover the costs of renewable energy contracts on a bypassable basis by the end of 2032, recover costs of OVEC after 2030 or incurs significant costs associated with the derivative actions, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Current wording

In March 2021, the Governor of Ohio signed legislation that, among other things, repealed the payments to the nonaffiliated owner of Ohio’s nuclear power plants that were previously authorized under HB 6. The new legislation, House Bill 128, went into effect in May 2021 and leaves unchanged other provisions of HB 6 regarding energy efficiency programs, recovery of renewable energy costs and recovery of OVEC costs. To the extent that the law changes or OPCo: (a) is unable to recover the costs of renewable energy contracts on a bypassable basis by the end of 2032 or (b) is unable to recover costs of OVEC after 2030, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Previous wording

In January 2021, an AEP shareholder filed a derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purporting to assert claims on behalf of AEP against certain AEP officers and directors. In February 2021, a second AEP shareholder filed a similar derivative action in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio. In April 2021, a third AEP shareholder filed a similar derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and a fourth AEP shareholder filed a similar derivative action in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, Nassau County. These derivative complaints allege the officers and directors made misrepresentations and omissions similar to those alleged in the putative securities class action lawsuit filed against AEP. The derivative complaints together assert claims for: (a) breach of fiduciary duty, (b) waste of corporate assets, (c) unjust enrichment, (d) breach of duty for insider trading and (e) contribution for violations of sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and seek monetary damages and changes to AEP’s corporate governance and internal policies among other forms of relief. The court entered a scheduling order in the New York state court derivative action staying the case other than with respect to briefing the motion to dismiss. AEP filed substantive and forum-based motions to dismiss in April 2022. In June 2022, the Ohio state court entered an order continuing the stays of that case until the final resolution of the consolidated derivative actions pending in Ohio federal district court. In September 2022, the New York state court granted the forum-based motion to dismiss with prejudice and the plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the New York appellate court. In January 2023, the New York plaintiff filed a motion to intervene in the pending Ohio federal court action and withdrew his appeal in New York. The two derivative actions pending in federal district court in Ohio have been consolidated and the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint. AEP filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and subsequently filed a brief in opposition to the New York plaintiffs’ motion to intervene in the consolidated action in Ohio. In March 2023, the federal district court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice and denying the New York plaintiffs’ motion to intervene. In April 2023, one of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit of the Ohio federal district court order dismissing the consolidated action and denying the intervention. The defendants will continue to defend against the claims. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring.

Current wording

In January 2021, an AEP shareholder filed a derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purporting to assert claims on behalf of AEP against certain AEP officers and directors. In February 2021, a second AEP shareholder filed a similar derivative action in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio. In April 2021, a third AEP shareholder filed a similar derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and a fourth AEP shareholder filed a similar derivative action in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, Nassau County. These derivative complaints allege the officers and directors made misrepresentations and omissions similar to those alleged in the putative securities class action lawsuit filed against AEP. The derivative complaints (collectively, the “Derivative Actions”) together assert claims for: (a) breach of fiduciary duty, (b) waste of corporate assets, (c) unjust enrichment, (d) breach of duty for insider trading and (e) contribution for violations of sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and seek monetary damages and changes to AEP’s corporate governance and internal policies among other forms of relief. The court entered a scheduling order in the New York state court derivative action staying the case other than with respect to briefing the motion to dismiss. AEP filed substantive and forum-based motions to dismiss in April 2022. In June 2022, the Ohio state court entered an order continuing the stays of that case until the final resolution of the consolidated derivative actions pending in Ohio federal district court. In September 2022, the New York state court granted the forum-based motion to dismiss with prejudice and the plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the New York appellate court. In January 2023, the New York plaintiff filed a motion to intervene in the pending Ohio federal court action and withdrew his appeal in New York. The two derivative actions pending in federal district court in Ohio have been consolidated and the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint. AEP filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and subsequently filed a brief in opposition to the New York plaintiffs’ motion to intervene in the consolidated action in Ohio. In March 2023, the federal district court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice and denying the New York plaintiffs’ motion to intervene. In April 2023, one of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit of the Ohio federal district court order dismissing the consolidated action and denying the intervention.

Previous wording

In March 2021, AEP received a litigation demand letter from counsel representing a purported AEP shareholder. The litigation demand letter was directed to the Board of Directors of AEP (AEP Board) and contained factual allegations involving HB 6 that were generally consistent with those in the derivative litigation filed in state and federal court. The shareholder that sent the letter has since withdrawn the litigation demand, which is now terminated and of no further effect. In April 2023, AEP received a litigation demand from counsel representing the purported AEP shareholder who filed the dismissed derivative action in New York state court and unsuccessfully tried to intervene in the consolidated derivative actions in Ohio federal court. The litigation demand letter is directed to the AEP Board and contains factual allegations involving HB 6 that are generally consistent with those in the derivative litigation filed in state and federal court. The letter demands, among other things, that the AEP Board undertake an independent investigation into alleged legal violations by certain current and former directors and officers, and that AEP commence a civil action for breaches of fiduciary duty and related claims against any individuals who allegedly harmed AEP. The AEP Board considered the 2023 litigation demand letter and formed a committee of the Board (the “Demand Review Committee”) to investigate, review, monitor and analyze the allegations in the letter and make a recommendation to the AEP Board regarding a reasonable and appropriate response to the same. The AEP Board will act in response to the letter as appropriate. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring.

Current wording

In March 2021, AEP received a litigation demand letter from counsel representing a purported AEP shareholder. The litigation demand letter was directed to the Board of Directors of AEP (AEP Board) and contained factual allegations involving HB 6 that were generally consistent with those in the derivative litigation filed in state and federal court. The shareholder that sent the letter has since withdrawn the litigation demand, which is now terminated and of no further effect. In April 2023, AEP received a litigation demand letter from counsel representing the purported AEP shareholder who had filed the dismissed derivative action in New York state court and unsuccessfully tried to intervene in the consolidated derivative actions in Ohio federal court the (Litigation Demand). The Litigation Demand is directed to the AEP Board and contains factual allegations involving HB 6 that are generally consistent with those in the Derivative Actions. The Litigation Demand requested, among other things, that the AEP Board undertake an independent investigation into alleged legal violations by certain current and former directors and officers, and that AEP commence a civil action asserting claims similar to the claims asserted in the Derivative Actions. The AEP Board considered the Litigation Demand and formed a committee of the Board (the Demand Review Committee) to investigate, review, monitor and analyze the Litigation Demand and make a recommendation to the AEP Board regarding a reasonable and appropriate response to the same.

Previous wording

In November 2022, the Federal EPA issued a final decision denying Gavin Power LLC’s requested extension to allow a CCR surface impoundment at the Gavin Power Station to continue to receive CCR and non-CCR waste streams after April 11, 2021 until May 4, 2023 (the Gavin Denial). As part of the Gavin Denial, the Federal EPA made several assertions related to the CCR Rule (see “CCR Rule” section below for additional information), including an assertion that the closure of the 300 acre unlined fly ash reservoir (FAR) is noncompliant with the CCR Rule in multiple respects. The Gavin Power Station was formerly owned and operated by AEP and was sold to Gavin Power LLC and Lightstone Generation LLC in 2017. Pursuant to the PSA, AEP maintained responsibility to complete closure of the FAR in accordance with the closure plan approved by the Ohio EPA which was completed in July 2021. The PSA contains indemnification provisions, pursuant to which the owners of the Gavin Power Station have notified AEP they believe they are entitled to indemnification for any damages that may result from these claims, including any future enforcement or litigation resulting from any determinations of noncompliance by the Federal EPA with various aspects of the CCR Rule consistent with the Gavin Denial. The owners of the Gavin Power Station have also sought indemnification for landowner claims for property damage allegedly caused by modifications to the FAR. Management does not believe that the owners of the Gavin Power Station have any valid claim for indemnity or otherwise against AEP under the PSA. In addition, Gavin Power LLC, several AEP subsidiaries, and other parties have filed Petitions for Review of the Gavin Denial with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring. Gavin Power LLC has also filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging various violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and asserting that the Federal EPA, through its prior inaction, has waived and is estopped from raising certain objections raised in the Gavin Denial. Management cannot predict the outcome of that litigation.

Current wording

In November 2022, the Federal EPA issued a final decision denying Gavin Power LLC’s requested extension to allow a CCR surface impoundment at the Gavin Power Station to continue to receive CCR and non-CCR waste streams after April 11, 2021 until May 4, 2023 (the Gavin Denial). As part of the Gavin Denial, the Federal EPA made several assertions related to the CCR Rule (see “CCR Rule” section below for additional information), including an assertion that the closure of the 300 acre unlined fly ash reservoir (FAR) is noncompliant with the CCR Rule in multiple respects. The Gavin Power Station was formerly owned and operated by AEP and was sold to Gavin Power LLC and Lightstone Generation LLC in 2017. Pursuant to the PSA, AEP maintained responsibility to complete closure of the FAR in accordance with the closure plan approved by the Ohio EPA which was completed in July 2021. The PSA contains indemnification provisions, pursuant to which the owners of the Gavin Power Station have notified AEP they believe they are entitled to indemnification for any damages that may result from these claims, including any future enforcement or litigation resulting from any determinations of noncompliance by the Federal EPA with various aspects of the CCR Rule consistent with the Gavin Denial. The owners of the Gavin Power Station have also sought indemnification for landowner claims for property damage allegedly caused by modifications to the FAR. Management does not believe that the owners of the Gavin Power Station have any valid claim for indemnity or otherwise against AEP under the PSA. In January 2024, Gavin Power LLC also filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging various violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and asserting that the Federal EPA, through its prior inaction, has waived and is estopped from raising certain objections raised in the Gavin Denial. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring.

Previous wording

AEP has a substantial capital investment program and incurs additional operational costs to comply with environmental control requirements. Additional investments and operational changes will be made in response to existing and anticipated requirements to reduce emissions from fossil generation and in response to rules governing the beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion by-products, clean water and renewal permits for certain water discharges.

Current wording

AEP has a substantial capital investment program and incurs additional operational costs to comply with environmental control requirements. Additional investments and operational changes will be made in response to existing and potential future requirements to reduce emissions from fossil generation and in response to rules governing the beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion by-products, clean water and renewal permits for certain water discharges. AEP is unable to predict changes in regulations, regulatory guidance, legal interpretations, policy positions and implementation actions that may result from the change in Presidential administrations.

Previous wording

Environmental Controls Impact on the Generating Fleet

Current wording

Impact of Environmental Compliance on the Generating Fleet

Previous wording

The rules and proposed environmental controls discussed below will have a material impact on AEP’s operations. Management continues to evaluate the impact of these rules, project scope and technology available to achieve compliance. As of December 31, 2023, AEP owned generating capacity of approximately 23,300 MWs, of which approximately 10,700 MWs were coal-fired. Management continues to evaluate the economic feasibility of environmental investments on AEP’s fossil generation fleet and to refine the cost estimates of complying with these rules and evaluate other impacts of the environmental proposals on fossil generation.

Current wording

The rules and environmental control requirements discussed below will have a material impact on AEP’s operations. As of December 31, 2024, AEP owned generating capacity of approximately 23,200 MWs, of which approximately 10,700 MWs were coal-fired. In April 2024, the Federal EPA announced four major new rules directed at fossil-fuel electric generation facilities. Management continues to evaluate the impacts of these rules on the plans for the future of AEP’s generating fleet, in particular, the economic feasibility of making the requisite environmental investments in AEP’s fossil generation fleet. AEP continues to refine the cost estimates of complying with these rules to identify the best alternative for ensuring compliance with all of the rules while meeting AEP’s obligations to provide reliable and affordable electricity.

Previous wording

The cost estimates will change depending on the timing of implementation and whether the Federal EPA provides flexibility in finalizing proposed rules or revising certain existing requirements. The cost estimates will also change based on: (a) potential state rules that impose more stringent standards, (b) additional rulemaking activities in response to court decisions, (c) actual performance of the pollution control technologies installed, (d) changes in costs for new pollution controls, (e) new generating technology developments, (f) total MWs of capacity retired and replaced, including the type and amount of such replacement capacity, (g) compliance with the Federal EPA’s revised coal combustion residual rules and (h) other factors.

Current wording

The costs of complying with new rules may also change based on: (a) potential state rules that impose additional more stringent standards, (b) additional rulemaking activities in response to court decisions, (c) actual performance of the pollution control technologies installed, (d) changes in costs for new pollution controls, (e) new generating technology developments, (f) total MWs of capacity retired and replaced, including the type and amount of such replacement capacity and (g) other factors.

Previous wording

The CAA establishes a comprehensive program to protect and improve the nation’s air quality and control sources of air emissions. The states implement and administer many of these programs and could impose additional or more stringent requirements. The primary regulatory programs that continue to drive investments in AEP’s existing generating units include: (a) periodic revisions to NAAQS and the development of SIPs to achieve more stringent standards, (b) implementation of the regional haze program by the states and the Federal EPA, (c) regulation of hazardous air pollutant emissions under MATS, (d) implementation and review of CSAPR and (e) the Federal EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil generation under Section 111 of the CAA. Notable developments in significant CAA regulatory requirements affecting AEP’s operations are discussed in the following sections.

Current wording

The CAA establishes a comprehensive program to protect and improve the nation’s air quality and control sources of air emissions. The states implement and administer many of these programs and could impose additional or more stringent requirements. The primary regulatory programs that continue to drive investments in AEP’s existing generating units include: (a) periodic revisions to NAAQS and the development of SIPs to achieve more stringent standards, (b) implementation of the regional haze program by the states and the Federal EPA, (c) regulation of hazardous air pollutant emissions under MATS, (d) implementation and review of CSAPR and (e) the Federal EPA’s regulation of GHG emissions from fossil generation under Section 111 of the CAA. Notable developments in significant CAA regulatory requirements affecting AEP’s operations are discussed in the following sections.

Previous wording

The Federal EPA periodically reviews and revises the NAAQS for criteria pollutants under the CAA. Revisions tend to increase the stringency of the standards, which in turn may require AEP to make investments in pollution control equipment at existing generating units, or, since most units are already well controlled, to make changes in how units are dispatched and operated. In February 2024, the Federal EPA finalized a new more stringent annual primary PM2.5 standard.

Current wording

The Federal EPA periodically reviews and revises the NAAQS for criteria pollutants under the CAA. Revisions tend to increase the stringency of the standards, which in turn may require AEP to make investments in pollution control equipment at existing generating units, or, since most units are already well controlled, to make changes in how units are dispatched and operated. In February 2024, the Federal EPA finalized a new more stringent annual primary PM 2.5 standard.

Previous wording

Areas with air quality that does not meet the new standard will be designated by the Federal EPA as “nonattainment,” which will trigger an obligation for states to revise their SIPs to obtain further emission reductions to ensure that the new standard will be met. Areas around some of AEP’s generating facilities may be deemed nonattainment, which may subject those facilities to additional pollution controls or operational constraints. The nonattainment designations by the Federal EPA and the subsequent SIP revisions by the affected states will take some time to complete, therefore, it is too soon to predict how SIP requirements may impact AEP’s operations. Management will continue to monitor the issue.

Current wording

Areas with air quality that does not meet the new standard will be designated by the Federal EPA as “nonattainment,” which will trigger an obligation for states to revise their SIPs to include additional requirements, resulting in further emission reductions to ensure that the new standard will be met. Areas around some of AEP’s generating facilities may be deemed nonattainment, which may require those facilities to install additional pollution controls or to implement operational constraints. The nonattainment designations by the Federal EPA and the subsequent SIP revisions by the affected states will take some time to complete; therefore, management cannot reasonably estimate the impact on AEP’s operations, cash flows, net income or financial condition.

Previous wording

The Federal EPA issued a Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) in 2005, which could require power plants and other facilities to install best available retrofit technology to address regional haze in federal parks and other protected areas. CAVR is implemented by the states, through SIPs, or by the Federal EPA, through FIPs. In 2017, the Federal EPA revised the rules governing submission of SIPs to implement the visibility programs. Petitions for review of the final rule revisions have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Current wording

The Federal EPA issued a Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) in 2005, which could require power plants and other facilities to install best available retrofit technology to address regional haze in federal parks and other protected areas. CAVR is implemented by the states, through SIPs, or by the Federal EPA, through FIPs. In 2017, the Federal EPA revised the rules governing submission of SIPs to implement the visibility programs. Petitions for review of the final rule revisions were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In early 2018, the Federal EPA announced plans to revisit aspects of the final rule raised by petitioners in petitions for administrative reconsideration, and the court granted the Federal EPA’s motion to hold the litigation in abeyance.

Previous wording

In Texas, the Federal EPA disapproved portions of the Texas regional haze SIP and finalized a FIP that allows participation in the CSAPR ozone season program to satisfy the NOX regional haze obligations for electric generating units in Texas. Additionally, the Federal EPA finalized an intrastate SO 2 emissions trading program based on CSAPR allowance allocations. Legal challenges to these various rulemakings are pending in both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Management cannot predict the outcome of that litigation, although management supports the intrastate trading program as a compliance alternative to source-specific controls and has intervened in the litigation in support of the Federal EPA.

Current wording

The Federal EPA disapproved portions of the Texas regional haze SIP and finalized a FIP that allows participation in the CSAPR ozone season program to satisfy the NOX regional haze obligations for electric generating units in Texas. Additionally, the Federal EPA finalized an intrastate SO 2 emissions trading program based on CSAPR allowance allocations. Environmental groups filed challenges to these various rulemakings in district courts in the Fifth Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit. Management cannot predict the outcome of that litigation, although management supports the intrastate trading program as a compliance alternative to source-specific controls and intervened in the Fifth Circuit litigation in support of the Federal EPA. In July 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit entered a consent decree setting deadlines for the Federal EPA to rule on Regional Haze SIPs for 32 states, including Texas. In September 2024, the Federal EPA signed a proposed rule to partially approve and partially disapprove the Texas SIP revision. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register in October 2024, initiating a public comment period ending November 14, 2024. The deadline for the Federal EPA to take final action on the Texas SIP is May 30, 2025.

Previous wording

CSAPR is a regional trading program that the Federal EPA began implementing in 2015, which was designed to address interstate transport of emissions that contribute significantly to non-attainment and interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM NAAQS in downwind states. CSAPR relies on SO 2 and NOX allowances and individual state budgets to compel further emission reductions from electric utility generating units. Interstate trading of allowances is allowed on a restricted basis. The Federal EPA has revised, or updated, the CSAPR trading programs several times since they were established.

Current wording

CSAPR is a regional trading program that the Federal EPA began implementing in 2015 to address interstate transport of emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS in downwind states. CSAPR relies on SO 2 and NOX allowances and individual state budgets to compel further emission reductions from electric utility generating units. Interstate trading of allowances is allowed on a restricted basis. The Federal EPA has revised, or updated, the CSAPR trading programs several times since they were established.

Previous wording

In January 2021, the Federal EPA finalized a revised CSAPR, which substantially reduced the ozone season NOX budgets for several states, including states where AEP operates, beginning in ozone season 2021. Management believes it can meet the requirements of the rule in the near term, and is evaluating its compliance options for later years, when the budgets are further reduced.

Current wording

In January 2021, the Federal EPA finalized a revised CSAPR, which substantially reduced the ozone season NOX budgets for several states, including states where AEP operates, beginning in ozone season 2021. AEP has been able to meet the requirements of the revised rule over the first few years of implementation, and is evaluating its compliance options for later years, when the budgets are further reduced.

Previous wording

In addition, in February 2023, the Federal EPA Administrator finalized the disapproval of interstate transport SIPs submitted by 19 states addressing the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. Disapproval of the SIPs provides the Federal EPA with authority to impose a FIP for those states, replacing the SIPs that were disapproved. In August 2023, a FIP went into effect that further revises the ozone season NOX budgets under the existing CSAPR program in states to which the FIP applies. The disapproval of SIPs and implementation of FIPs continues to be subject to extensive litigation. Management will continue to monitor the outcome of this litigation and any potential impact to operations.

Current wording

In February 2023, the Federal EPA Administrator finalized the disapproval of interstate transport SIPs submitted by 19 states, including Texas, addressing the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. The Federal EPA disapproved interstate transport SIPs submitted by additional states soon thereafter. Disapproval of the SIPs provided the Federal EPA with authority to impose a FIP for those states, replacing the SIPs that were disapproved. In August 2023, a FIP (the Good Neighbor Plan) went into effect that further revised the ozone season NOX budgets under the existing CSAPR program in states to which the FIP applies. As a result of several separate legal challenges brought by states and industry parties in various federal courts, implementation of the FIP has been stayed in all of the states in which AEP operates. In October 2024, the Federal EPA issued a final rule to administratively stay the effectiveness of the Good Neighbor Plan’s requirements for all sources covered by that rule as promulgated where an administrative stay was not already in place. The administrative stay of the Good Neighbor Plan’s effectiveness for power plants and other industrial facilities in each of the 23 states will remain in place until the Supreme Court lifts its order staying enforcement of the Good Neighbor Plan, other courts lift any judicial orders staying the SIP disapproval action as to the state, and the Federal EPA takes subsequent rulemaking action consistent with any judicial rulings on the merits. Additionally, in February 2025, the Federal EPA filed a motion with the court seeking to hold the legal challenges related to the Good Neighbor Plan in abeyance for 60 days, to allow the new administration time to review the rule. Management will continue to monitor the outcome of this litigation and the development of SIPs for any potential impact to operations.

Previous wording

In May 2023, the Federal EPA proposed greenhouse gas standards and guidelines for new and existing fossil-fuel fired sources. The proposal relies heavily on carbon capture and sequestration and natural gas co-firing as means to reduce CO 2 emissions from coal fired plants and hydrogen co-firing and carbon capture and sequestration to reduce CO 2 emissions from gas turbines. Management is evaluating the proposed rule.

Current wording

In April 2024, the Administrator of the Federal EPA signed new GHG standards and guidelines for new and existing fossil-fuel fired sources. The rule relies on carbon capture and sequestration and natural gas co-firing as means to reduce CO 2 emissions from coal fired plants and carbon capture and sequestration or limited utilization to reduce CO 2 emissions from new gas turbines. The rule also offers early retirement of coal plants in lieu of carbon capture and storage as an alternative means of compliance.

Previous wording

Excessive costs to comply with future legislation or regulations have led to the announcement of early plant closures and could force AEP to close additional coal-fired generation facilities earlier than their estimated useful life. If AEP is unable to recover the costs of its investments, it would reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Current wording

AEP is in the early stages of evaluating and identifying the best strategy for complying with this and other new rules, discussed below, while ensuring the adequacy of resources to meet customer needs. The rule has been challenged by 27 states, numerous companies, trade associations and others. AEP has joined with several other utilities to challenge the rule and has asked the court to stay the rule during the litigation, and the appeals have been consolidated. In July 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied those motions to stay and several parties, including AEP and other utilities, filed applications with the United States Supreme Court seeking an emergency stay. The Supreme Court denied those applications in October 2024 and the challenges to the rule before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals were placed on an expedited schedule, with oral arguments held in December 2024. On February 5, 2025, Federal EPA filed an unopposed motion asking the court to withhold issuing an opinion and to hold the case in abeyance for 60 days to allow the new Agency leadership to review the underlying rule. Management cannot predict the outcome of that litigation. Excessive costs to comply with environmental regulations have led to the announcement of early plant closures across the country. The Federal EPA’s new GHG rules, and suite of other new rules issued simultaneously which are discussed below, are directed at the fossil-fuel fired electric utility industry and could force AEP to close additional coal-fired generation facilities earlier than their estimated useful life. If AEP is unable to recover the costs of its investments, it would reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Previous wording

In April 2023, the Federal EPA issued a proposed rule that would revise the MATS for power plants. The proposed rule includes a more stringent standard for emissions of filterable PM for coal-fired electric generating units, as well as a new mercury standard for lignite-fired electric generating units. The proposed rule also requires the installation and operation of continuous emissions monitors for PM. Management is evaluating the impacts of the rule as proposed and will continue to monitor the rulemaking.

Current wording

In April 2024, the Federal EPA issued a revised MATS rule for power plants. The rule includes a more stringent standard for emissions of filterable PM for coal-fired electric generating units, as well as a new mercury standard for lignite-fired electric generating units. The rule also requires the installation and operation of continuous emissions monitors for PM. Several states and other parties have challenged the rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but management cannot predict the outcome of the litigation. Management is evaluating the impacts of the rule, but does not anticipate any significant challenges complying with the rule.

Previous wording

The Federal EPA’s CCR rule regulates the disposal and beneficial re-use of CCR, including fly ash and bottom ash created from coal-fired generating units and FGD gypsum generated at some coal-fired plants. The rule applies to active and inactive CCR landfills and surface impoundments at facilities of active electric utility or independent power producers.

Current wording

The Federal EPA’s CCR Rule regulates the disposal and beneficial re-use of CCR, including fly ash and bottom ash created from coal-fired generating units and FGD gypsum generated at some coal-fired plants. As originally promulgated, the rule applied to active and inactive CCR landfills and surface impoundments at facilities of active electric utility or independent power producers.

Previous wording

In 2020, the Federal EPA revised the CCR rule to include a requirement that unlined CCR storage ponds cease operations and initiate closure by April 11, 2021. The revised rule provides two options that allow facilities to extend the date by which they must cease receipt of coal ash and close the ponds.

Current wording

In 2020, the Federal EPA revised the original CCR Rule to include a requirement that unlined CCR storage ponds cease operations and initiate closure by April 11, 2021. The revised rule provided two options by which facilities could continue to operate unlined CCR storage ponds.

Previous wording

The first option provides an extension to cease receipt of CCR no later than October 15, 2023 for most units, and October 15, 2024 for a narrow subset of units; however, the Federal EPA’s grant of such an extension requires a satisfactory demonstration of the need for additional time to develop alternative ash disposal capacity and will be limited to the soonest timeframe technically feasible to cease receipt of CCR. Additionally, each request must undergo formal review, including public comments, and be approved by the Federal EPA. AEP filed applications for additional time to develop alternative disposal capacity at the various plants.

Current wording

The first option provided an extension of the date by which unlined ponds had to cease receipt of CCR, and required a satisfactory demonstration of the need for additional time to develop alternative ash disposal capacity.

Previous wording

Under the second option for obtaining an extension of the April 11, 2021 deadline to cease operation of unlined impoundments, a generating facility may continue operating its existing impoundments without developing alternative CCR disposal, provided the facility commits to cease combustion of coal by a date certain. Under this option, a generating facility had until October 17, 2023 to cease coal-fired operations and to close CCR storage ponds 40 acres or less in size, or through October 17, 2028 for facilities with CCR storage ponds greater than 40 acres in size. Pursuant to this option, AEP informed the Federal EPA of its intent to retire the Pirkey Plant and cease using coal at the Welsh Plant. In March 2023, the Pirkey Plant was retired. To date, the Federal EPA has not taken any action on the pending extension request for the Welsh Plant.

Current wording

The second option allowed a generating facility to seek an extension of time to continue operating existing unlined CCR impoundments without developing alternative CCR disposal, provided the facility commits to cease combustion of coal by a date certain. Under this option, a generating facility had until October 17, 2023 to cease coal-fired operations and to close CCR storage ponds 40 acres or less in size, or through October 17, 2028 for facilities with CCR storage ponds greater than 40 acres in size. Pursuant to this option, AEP has applied for an extension of time to keep using unlined CCR impoundments at the Welsh Plant and has committed to cease coal combustion at that plant by October 17, 2028. To date, the Federal EPA has not taken any action on the pending extension request for the Welsh Plant.

Previous wording

In May 2023, the Federal EPA proposed revisions to the CCR Rule to expand the scope of the rule to include inactive impoundments at inactive facilities (“legacy CCR surface impoundments”) as well as to establish requirements for currently exempt solid waste management units that involve the direct placement of CCR on the land (“CCR management units”). The Federal EPA is proposing that owners and operators of legacy surface impoundments comply with all of the existing CCR Rule requirements applicable to inactive CCR surface impoundments at active facilities, except for the location restrictions and liner design criteria. The proposal establishes accelerated compliance deadlines for legacy surface impoundments to meet regulatory requirements, including a requirement to initiate closure within one year after the effective date of the final rule. The Federal EPA's proposal would require evaluations to be completed at both active facilities and inactive facilities with one or more legacy surface impoundments. If finalized, AEP may incur material, additional costs complying with the Federal EPA’s proposal, including costs to upgrade or close and replace legacy CCR surface impoundments and to conduct any required remedial actions including removal of coal ash. In addition, AEP would need to seek cost recovery through regulated rates, including proposing new regulatory mechanisms for cost recovery, for which regulatory approval cannot be assured. The proposed rule, if finalized, could have a material adverse impact on net income, cash flows and financial condition if AEP cannot ultimately recover any additional costs of compliance.

Current wording

In April 2024, the Federal EPA finalized revisions to the CCR Rule to expand the scope of the rule to include inactive impoundments at inactive facilities (“legacy CCR surface impoundments”) as well as to establish requirements for currently exempt solid waste management units that involve the direct placement of CCR on the land (“CCR management units”). The Federal EPA is requiring that owners and operators of legacy surface impoundments comply with all of the existing CCR Rule requirements applicable to inactive CCR surface impoundments at active facilities, except for the location restrictions and liner design criteria. The rule establishes compliance deadlines for legacy surface impoundments to meet regulatory requirements, including a requirement to initiate closure within five years after the effective date of the final rule. The rule requires evaluations to be completed at both active facilities and inactive facilities with one or more legacy surface impoundments. Closure may be accomplished by applying an impermeable cover system over the CCR material (“closure in place”) or the CCR material may be excavated and placed in a compliant landfill (“closure by removal”). Groundwater monitoring and other analysis over the next three years will provide additional information on the planned closure method. AEP evaluated the applicability of the rule to current and former plant sites and recorded incremental ARO in the second quarter of 2024, as shown in the table below, based on initial cost estimates primarily reflecting compliance with the rule through closure in place and future groundwater monitoring requirements pursuant to the revised CCR Rule.

Previous wording

The Federal EPA’s ELG rule for generating facilities establishes limits for FGD wastewater, fly ash and bottom ash transport water and flue gas mercury control wastewater, which are to be implemented through each facility’s wastewater discharge permit. A revision to the ELG rule, published in October 2020, established additional options for reusing and discharging small volumes of bottom ash transport water, provided an exception for retiring units and extended the compliance deadline to a date as soon as possible beginning one year after the rule was published but no later than December 2025. Management has assessed technology additions and retrofits to comply with the rule and the impacts of the Federal EPA’s actions on facilities’ wastewater discharge permitting for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water. For affected facilities that must install additional technologies to meet the ELG rule limits, permit modifications were filed in January 2021 that reflect the outcome of that assessment. AEP continues to work with state agencies to finalize permit terms and conditions. Other facilities opted to file Notices of Planned Participation (NOPP), pursuant to which the facilities are not required to install additional controls to meet ELG limits provided they make commitments to cease coal combustion by a date certain. In March 2023, the Federal EPA proposed further revisions to the ELG rule which, if finalized, would establish a zero discharge standard for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water, and more stringent discharge limits for combustion residual leachate. Management is evaluating the impacts of the proposed rule to operations. Management cannot predict whether the Federal EPA will actually finalize further revisions, but will continue to monitor this issue and will participate in further rulemaking activities as they arise.

Current wording

The Federal EPA’s ELG rule for generating facilities establishes limits for FGD wastewater, fly ash and bottom ash transport water and flue gas mercury control wastewater, which are to be implemented through each facility’s wastewater discharge permit. A revision to the ELG rule, published in October 2020, established additional options for reusing and discharging small volumes of bottom ash transport water, provided an exception for retiring units and extended the compliance deadline to a date as soon as possible beginning one year after the rule was published but no later than December 2025. Management has assessed technology additions and retrofits to comply with the rule and the impacts of the Federal EPA’s actions on facilities’ wastewater discharge permitting for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water. For affected facilities required to install additional technologies to meet the ELG rule limits, permit modifications were filed in January 2021 that reflect the outcome of that assessment. AEP continues to work with state agencies to finalize permit terms and conditions. Other facilities opted to file Notices of Planned Participation (NOPP), pursuant to which the facilities are not required to install additional controls to meet ELG limits provided they make commitments to cease coal combustion by a date certain.

Previous wording

(e)As part of the 2021 Arkansas Base Rate Case, the APSC granted SWEPCo regulatory asset treatment. SWEPCo will request recovery including a weighted average cost of capital carrying charge through a future proceeding. The Texas share of the Pirkey Plant will be addressed in SWEPCo’s next base rate case. See the “Coal-Fired Generation Plants” section of Note 5 for additional information.

Current wording

(e)As part of the 2021 Arkansas Base Rate Case, the APSC granted SWEPCo regulatory asset treatment. SWEPCo will request recovery including a weighted average cost of capital carrying charge through a future proceeding. The Texas share of the Pirkey Plant will be addressed in SWEPCo’s next base rate case. See the “Regulated Generating Units” section of Note 5 for additional information.