AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER CO INC

•Retail Revenues increased $58 million primarily due to the following:

•A $29 million increase from rider revenues.

•A $16 million increase in weather-related usage primarily due to an 81% increase in heating degree days and a 10% increase in cooling degree days.

•A $14 million increase in revenue from the base rate case.

•Transmission Revenues increased $17 million primarily due to an increase in interim rates driven by increased transmission investments.

•Other Revenues decreased $19 million primarily due to the maturity of Transition Funding III LLC securitization bonds in December 2024.

Expenses and Other changed between years as follows:

•Other Operation and Maintenance expenses increased $28 million primarily due to an increase in recoverable transmission expenses.

•Depreciation and Amortization expenses decreased $8 million primarily due to a $16 million decrease in the amortization of securitized transition assets due to the maturity of Transition Funding III LLC securitization bonds in December 2024, offset by a $9 million increase due to a higher depreciable base.

•Taxes Other Than Income Taxes increased $7 million primarily due to higher property taxes driven by increased investment.

•Interest Expense increased $12 million primarily due to higher debt balances and interest rates.

ASSETS

Summary of Investment in Transmission Assets for AEPTCo

The major components of the increase in Transmission Revenues, which consists of wholesale sales to affiliates and nonaffiliates, were as follows:

•Transmission Revenues increased $44 million primarily due to continued investment in transmission assets.

•Depreciation and Amortization expenses increased $8 million due to a higher depreciable base.

•Allowance for Equity Funds Used During Construction increased $5 million due to a higher AFUDC base and higher AFUDC rates.

•Income Tax Expense increased $9 million primarily due to an increase in pretax book income.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN MEMBER’S EQUITY

ASSETS

LIABILITIES AND MEMBER’S EQUITY

•Retail Revenues increased $87 million primarily due to the following:

•A $41 million increase in weather-related usage driven by a 39% increase in heating degree days.

•A $36 million increase in fuel revenues driven by an increase in load.

•A $24 million increase in rider revenues.

•Other Revenues decreased $9 million primarily due to a decrease in sales of renewable energy credits.

•Purchased Electricity, Fuel and Other Consumables Used for Electric Generation expenses increased $10 million primarily due to an increase in load partially offset by the prior year amortization of Excess ADIT through the ENEC.

•Other Operation and Maintenance expenses increased $7 million primarily due to an increase in recoverable energy assistance program expenses for qualified Virginia customers.

•Depreciation and Amortization expenses increased $13 million primarily due to a higher depreciable base.

•Taxes Other Than Income Taxes decreased $6 million primarily due to lower franchise taxes and business and occupation taxes.

•Income Tax Expense increased $27 million due to the following:

•A $15 million increase due to a decrease in amortization of Excess ADIT.

•A $12 million increase due to an increase in pretax book income.

ASSETS

•Retail Revenues increased $51 million primarily due to the following:

•A $41 million increase in fuel revenues.

•A $20 million increase in rider revenues.

•A $15 million increase due to the implementation of new base rates in Indiana and Michigan.

•A $13 million increase in weather-related usage primarily due to a 26% increase in heating degree days.

•A $49 million decrease due to regulatory provisions for refund.

•Off-system Sales increased $6 million primarily due to economic hedging activity and Rockport Plant, Unit 2 merchant sales.

•Purchased Electricity, Fuel and Other Consumables Used for Electric Generation expenses increased $53 million primarily due to an increase in recoverable fuel and purchased power costs and an increase in Rockport Plant, Unit 2 merchant generation fuel costs, partially offset by a decrease due to a prior year purchased power disallowance from the MPSC order on the 2021 PSCR reconciliation.

•Purchased Electricity from AEP Affiliates increased $15 million primarily due to an increase in purchased electricity from AEGCo.

•Depreciation and Amortization expenses increased $16 million primarily due to the following:

•An $8 million increase due to a prior year deferral of Excess ADIT as a result of the PLR received regarding the treatment of stand-alone NOLCs.

•A $5 million increase due to a higher depreciable base.

•Interest Expense increased $9 million primarily due to a prior year deferral of expenses as a result of the IRS PLR received regarding the treatment of stand-alone NOLC’s in retail rate making.

•Income Tax Expense increased $47 million primarily due to the $55 million reduction in Excess ADIT regulatory liabilities as a result of the IRS PLR received regarding the treatment of stand-alone NOLCs in retail ratemaking recorded in 2024, partially offset by an $8 million decrease due to a decrease in pretax book income.

ASSETS

(dollars in millions)

(a)Represents energy delivered to distribution customers.

(b)Primarily Ohio’s contractually obligated purchases of OVEC power sold to PJM.

The major components of the decrease in Revenues were as follows:

•Retail Revenues decreased $32 million primarily due to the following:

•A $76 million decrease due to lower prices andlower customer participation in OPCo’s SSO.

•A $28 million decrease in weather-normalized revenues in all classes.

These decreases were partially offset by:

•A $49 million increase in rider revenues.

•A $27 million increase in weather-related usage driven by a 30% increase in heating degree days.

•Off-system Sales increased$13 million primarily due to increased sales of OVEC purchased power driven by higher market prices and volume.

•Purchased Electricity for Resale expenses decreased $12 million primarily due to $45 million in decreased recoverable purchases to serve SSO customers partially offset by a $35 million estimated reduction in regulatory assets for OVEC-related purchased power costs that are no longer probable of future recovery due to recently approved legislation in Ohio.

•Purchased Electricity from AEP Affiliates expenses decreased $31 million primarily due to decreased recoverable purchases to serve SSO customers.

•Other Operation and Maintenance expenses increased $32 million primarily due to the following:

•A $50 million increase in transmission expenses primarily due to an increase in recoverable PJM expenses.

This increase was partially offset by:

•An $11 million decrease in distribution expenses primarily related to recoverable storm restoration costs and recoverable vegetation management expenses.

•A $9 million decrease related to recoverable energy assistance program expenses for qualified Ohio customers.

•Depreciation and Amortization expenses decreased $12 million primarily due to capital rider under-recoveries.

•Taxes Other Than Income Taxes increased $8 million primarily due to the following:

•A $5 million increase in state excise taxes due to increased billed KWhs in 2025.

•A $4 million increase due to higher property taxes driven by additional investments in transmission and distribution assets and tax rate changes.

ASSETS

(a)Includes municipalities and cooperatives, unit power and other wholesale customers.

(a)Includes firm wholesale sales to municipals and cooperatives.

•Retail Revenues increased $10 million primarily due to the following:

•A $28 million increase in base rate and rider revenues.

•A $7 million increase in weather-related usage primarily driven by a 27% increase in heating degree days.

•A $30 million decrease in fuel revenue primarily due to lower authorized fuel rates.

•Other Revenues decreased $7 million primarily due to revenues from a customer project to enhance transmission resiliency in 2024.

Expenses and Other and Income Tax Benefit changed between years as follows:

•Purchased Electricity, Fuel and Other Consumables Used for Electric Generation expenses decreased $20 million primarily due to increased fuel and purchased power costs andlower authorized fuel rates resulting in increased deferred fuel balances.

•Interest Expense increased $14 million primarily due to a prior year deferral of expenses as a result of the IRS PLR received regarding the treatment of stand-alone NOLCs in retail rate making.

•Income Tax Benefit decreased $52 million primarily due to a reduction in Excess ADIT regulatory liabilities as a result of the IRS PLR received regarding the treatment of stand-alone NOLCs in retail rate making recorded in 2024.

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN

CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS

ASSETS

CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(a)Includes firm wholesale sales to municipals and cooperatives.

•Retail Revenues increased $15 million primarily due to the following:

•A $25 million increase in rider revenues.

•An $11 million increase in weather-related usage driven by a 29% increase in heating degree days and a 9% increase in cooling degree days.

•A $6 million increase in wholesale customer fuel revenues.

•A $23 million decrease in weather-normalized margins in all classes.

Expenses and Other and Income Tax Benefit changed between years as follows:

•Purchased Electricity, Fuel and Other Consumables Used for Electric Generation expenses increased $6 million primarily due to an increase in energy prices and load to serve wholesale customers.

•Other Operation and Maintenance expenses decreased $18 million primarily due to the prior year disallowance of the remaining net book value of the Dolet Hills Power Station as a result of an LPSC approved settlement agreement.

•Depreciation and Amortization expenses increased $20 million primarily due to a higher depreciable base and amortization of the Storm Recovery Funding securitized assets and other regulatory assets.

•Interest Expense increased $26 million primarily due to a prior year deferral of expenses as a result of the IRS PLR received regarding the treatment of stand alone NOLCs in retail rate making.

•Income Tax Benefit decreased $138 million primarily due to the following:

•A $109 million decrease due to a reduction in Excess ADIT regulatory liabilities as a result of the IRS PLR received regarding the treatment of stand-alone NOLCs in retail rate making recorded in 2024.

•A $32 million decrease due to the reversal of a regulatory liability related to the merchant portion of Turk Plant Excess ADIT as a result of the APSC's March 2024 denial of SWEPCo's request to allow the merchant portion of the Turk Plant to serve Arkansas customers recorded in 2024.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY

See Condensed Notes to Condensed Financial Statements of Registrants beginning on page 96.

ASSETS

LIABILITIES AND EQUITY

INDEX OF CONDENSED NOTES TO CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF REGISTRANTS

The condensed notes to condensed financial statements are a combined presentation for the Registrants. The following list indicates Registrants to which the notes apply. Specific disclosures within each note apply to all Registrants unless indicated otherwise:

1. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING MATTERS

General

The unaudited condensed financial statements and footnotes were prepared in accordance with GAAP for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X of the SEC. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete annual financial statements.

In the opinion of management, the unaudited condensed interim financial statements reflect all normal and recurring accruals and adjustments necessary for a fair statement of the net income, financial position and cash flows for the interim periods for each Registrant. Net income for the three months ended March 31, 2025 is not necessarily indicative of results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2025. The condensed financial statements are unaudited and should be read in conjunction with the audited 2024 financial statements and notes thereto, which are included in the 2024 Annual Reports.

Earnings Per Share (EPS) (Applies to AEP)

Basic EPS is calculated by dividing net earnings available to common shareholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted EPS is calculated by adjusting the weighted-average outstanding common shares, assuming conversion of all potentially dilutive securities. Dilutive securities are primarily related to forward sale of equity agreements and restricted stock units. See Note 12 - Financing Activities for more information regarding the forward sale of equity agreements.

The following table presents AEP’s basic and diluted EPS calculations included on the statements of income:

There wereno antidilutive shares outstanding as of March 31, 2025 and 2024.

Restricted Cash (Applies to AEP, AEP Texas, APCo and SWEPCo)

Restricted Cash primarily includes funds held by trustees for the payment of securitization bonds.

Reconciliation of Cash, Cash Equivalents and Restricted Cash

The following tables provide a reconciliation of Cash, Cash Equivalents and Restricted Cash reported within the balance sheets that sum to the total of the same amounts shown on the statements of cash flows:

2. NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

Management reviews the FASB’s standard-setting process and the SEC’s rulemaking activity to determine the relevance, if any, to the Registrants’ business. The following standards/rules will impact the Registrants’ financial statements.

SEC Climate Disclosure Rule

On March 6, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules that require registrants to disclose certain climate-related information in registration statements and annual reports. The final rules require registrants to disclose, among other things, material climate-related risks, activities to mitigate such risks and information about a registrant’s board of directors oversight and management’s role in managing material climate-related risks. The final rules also require registrants to provide information related to any climate-related targets or goals that are material to a registrant’s business, results of operations or financial condition. A majority of the reporting requirements are applicable to the fiscal year beginning in 2025, with the addition of assurance reporting for GHG emissions starting in 2029 for large accelerated filers. Litigation challenging the new rules was filed by multiple parties in multiple jurisdictions, which have been consolidated and assigned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On April 4, 2024, the SEC issued an order staying the final climate disclosure rules pending the completion of judicial review at the Court of Appeals. On March 27, 2025, the SEC announced that it voted to end its defense of the final climate disclosure rules. On April 3, 2025,18 states filed a motion to intervene in the case and to hold the case in abeyance until the SEC takes action to amend or rescind the rules. The Registrants are currently evaluating the status of the rules and the impact of the final rules on their respective consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

ASU 2023-07 “Improvements to Reportable Segment Disclosures” (ASU 2023-07)

In November 2023, the FASB issued ASU 2023-07, to address investors’ observations that there is limited information disclosed about segment expenses and to better understand expense categories and amounts included in segment profit or loss. The new standard requires annual and interim disclosure of (a) the categories and amounts of significant segment expenses (determined by management using both qualitative and quantitative factors) that are regularly provided to the CODM and included within each reported measure of segment profit or loss, (b) the amounts and a qualitative description of “other segment items”, defined as the difference between reported segment revenues less the significant segment expenses and each reported measure of segment profit or loss disclosed, (c) reportable segment profit or loss and assets that are currently only required annually, (d) the CODM’s title and position, and an explanation of how the CODM uses the reported measure(s) of segment profit or loss in assessing segment performance and deciding how to allocate resources and (e) a requirement that entities with a single reportable segment provide all disclosures required by ASU 2023-07 and all existing segment disclosures in Topic 280. Additionally, this new standard allows disclosure of one or more of additional profit or loss measures if the CODM uses more than one measure provided that at least one of the disclosed measures is determined in a manner “most consistent with the measurement principles under GAAP”. If multiple measures are presented, additional disclosure is required about how the CODM uses each measure to assess performance and decide how to allocate resources.

Management adopted ASU 2023-07 and its related implementation guidance effective January 1, 2024 for the annual reporting period and applied the amendments retrospectively to all prior periods presented in the annual consolidated financial statements. The amendments for interim periods were adopted in our fiscal year beginning on January 1, 2025. The adoption of the new standard did not impact the results of operations, statements of financial position or cash flows. See Note 8 - Business Segments for additional information.

ASU 2023-09 “Improvements to Income Tax Disclosures” (ASU 2023-09)

In December 2023, the FASB issued ASU 2023-09, to address investors’ suggested enhancements to (a) better understand an entity’s exposure to potential changes in jurisdictional tax legislation and the ensuing risks and opportunities, (b) assess income tax information that affects cash flow forecasts and capital allocation decisions and (c) identify potential opportunities to increase future cash flows.

The new standard requires an annual rate reconciliation disclosure of the following categories regardless of materiality: state and local income tax, net of federal income tax effect, foreign tax effects, effect of changes in tax laws or rates enacted in the current period, effect of cross-border tax laws, tax credits, changes in valuation allowances, nontaxable or nondeductible items and changes in unrecognized tax benefits.

The new standard also requires an annual disclosure of the amount of income taxes paid (net of refunds received) disaggregated by federal, state and foreign taxes and by individual jurisdictions that are equal to or greater than 5 percent of total income taxes paid. Disclosure of income (loss) from continuing operations before income tax expense (benefit) disaggregated between domestic and foreign jurisdictions and income tax expense (benefit) from continuing operations disaggregated by federal, state and foreign jurisdictions is required.

The new standard removes the requirement to disclose the cumulative amount of each type of temporary difference when a deferred tax liability is not recognized because of the exceptions to comprehensive recognition of deferred taxes related to subsidiaries and corporate joint ventures.

The amendments in the new standard may be applied on either a prospective or retrospective basis for public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2024 with early adoption permitted. Management has concluded to adopt the amendments to this standard prospectively beginning with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2025.

ASU 2024-03 “Income Statement-Reporting Comprehensive Income-Expense Disaggregation Disclosures” (ASU 2024-03)

In November 2024, the FASB issued ASU 2024-03, the intent of which is to improve financial reporting and respond to investor input by requiring public business entities to disclose additional information about certain expenses in the notes to financial statements in interim and annual reporting periods. Among other provisions, the new standard requires disclosure of disaggregated amounts for expenses such as employee compensation, depreciation, and intangible asset amortization included in each expense caption presented on the face of the income statement. Public business entities are required to include certain amounts that are already required to be disclosed under GAAP in the same disclosure as the other disaggregation requirements as well as a qualitative description of any amounts remaining in relevant expense captions that are not separately disaggregated quantitatively. The new standard also requires disclosure of the total amount of selling expenses and, in annual reporting periods, an entity’s definition of selling expenses. An entity is not precluded from providing additional voluntary disclosures that may provide investors with additional decision-useful information.

The amendments in the new standard are effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2026, and interim reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2027, with early adoption permitted. The amendments in the new standard should be applied either prospectively to financial statements issued for reporting periods after the effective date or retrospectively to any or all prior periods presented in the financial statements. Management is evaluating the new standard and has not yet determined when, or the method by which, the Registrants will adopt its amendments.

3. COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

The disclosures in this note apply to AEP only. The impact of AOCI is not material to the financial statements of the Registrant Subsidiaries.

Presentation of Comprehensive Income

The following tables provide AEP’s components of changes in AOCI and details of reclassifications from AOCI. The amortization of pension and OPEB AOCI components are included in the computation of net periodic pension and OPEB costs. See Note 7 - Benefit Plans for additional information.

(a)Amounts reclassified to the referenced line item on the statements of income.

4. RATE MATTERS

As discussed in the 2024 Annual Report, the Registrants are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. The Rate Matters note within the 2024 Annual Report should be read in conjunction with this report to gain a complete understanding of material rate matters still pending that could impact net income, cash flows and possibly financial condition. The following discusses ratemaking developments in 2025 and updates the 2024 Annual Report.

Regulated Generating Units (Applies to AEP, PSO and SWEPCo)

Compliance with extensive environmental regulations requires significant capital investment in environmental monitoring, installation of pollution control equipment, emission fees, disposal costs and permits. Management continuously evaluates cost estimates of complying with these regulations in balance with reliability and other factors, which has resulted in, and in the future may result in, a proposal to retire generating facilities earlier than their currently estimated useful lives.

Management is seeking or will seek regulatory recovery, as necessary, for any net book value remaining when the plants are retired. To the extent the net book value of these generation assets is not deemed recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Regulated Generating Units that have been Retired

SWEPCo

In March 2023, the Pirkey Plant was retired. As part of the 2020 Louisiana Base Rate Case, the LPSC authorized the recovery of SWEPCo’s Louisiana jurisdictional share of the Pirkey Plant, through a separate rider, through 2032. As part of the 2021 Arkansas Base Rate Case, the APSC granted SWEPCo regulatory asset treatment. SWEPCo requested recovery including a weighted average cost of capital carrying charge in its base rate case filed in March 2025. In July 2023, Texas ALJs issued a PFD that concluded the decision to retire the Pirkey Plant was prudent. In September 2023, the PUCT rejected the ALJs’ July 2023 PFD. In the open meeting, the commissioners expressed their concerns that the analysis in support of SWEPCo’s decision to retire the Pirkey Plant was not robust enough and that SWEPCo should have re-evaluated the decision following Winter Storm Uri. The treatment of the cost of recovery of the Pirkey Plant is expected to be addressed in a future rate case. As of March 31, 2025, the Texas jurisdictional share of the net book value of the Pirkey Plant was $69 million. To the extent any portion of the Texas jurisdictional share of the net book value of the Pirkey Plant is not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Regulated Generating Units to be Retired

PSO

In 2014, PSO received final approval from the Federal EPA to close Northeastern Plant, Unit 3, in 2026. The plant was originally scheduled to close in 2040. As a result of the early retirement date, PSO revised the useful life of Northeastern Plant, Unit 3, to the projected retirement date of 2026 and the incremental depreciation is being deferred as a regulatory asset. Following the 2024 Oklahoma Base Rate Case, PSO continues to recover Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 through 2040.

SWEPCo

In November 2020, management announced that it will cease using coal at the Welsh Plant in 2028. As a result of the announcement, SWEPCo began recording a regulatory asset for accelerated depreciation. In December 2024, SWEPCo filed an application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) with the APSC, LPSC and PUCT to convert Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 to natural gas in 2028 and 2027, respectively.

The table below summarizes the net book value including CWIP, before cost of removal and materials and supplies, as of March 31, 2025, of generating facilities planned for early retirement:

(a)Represents the amount of annual depreciation that has been collected from customers over the prior 12-month period.

(b)Includes Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, which was retired in 2016. Removal of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, will be performed with the removal of Northeastern Plant, Unit 3, after retirement.

(c)Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 is currently being recovered through 2040.

(d)Includes Welsh Plant, Unit 2, which was retired in 2016. Removal of Welsh Plant, Unit 2, will be performed with the removal of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3, after retirement.

(e)Represents projected retirement date of coal assets.

(f)Unit 1 is being recovered through 2027 in the Louisiana jurisdiction and through 2037 in the Arkansas and Texas jurisdictions. Unit 3 is being recovered through 2032 in the Louisiana jurisdiction and through 2042 in the Arkansas and Texas jurisdictions.

Dolet Hills Power Station and Related Fuel Operations (Applies to AEP and SWEPCo)

In December 2021, the Dolet Hills Power Station was retired. While in operation, DHLC provided 100% of the fuel supply to Dolet Hills Power Station. The remaining book value of Dolet Hills Power Station non-fuel related assets are recoverable by SWEPCo through rate riders. As of March 31, 2025, SWEPCo’s share of the net investment in the Dolet Hills Power Station was $70 million, including materials and supplies, net of cost of removal collected in rates. Fuel costs incurred by the Dolet Hills Power Station are recoverable by SWEPCo through active fuel clauses and are subject to prudency determinations by the various commissions. After closure of the DHLC mining operations and the Dolet Hills Power Station, additional reclamation and other land-related costs incurred by DHLC and Oxbow will continue to be billed to SWEPCo and included in existing fuel clauses. As of March 31, 2025, SWEPCo had a net under-recovered fuel balance of $28 million, inclusive of costs related to the Dolet Hills Power Station billed by DHLC, but excluding impacts of the February 2021 severe winter weather event.

In March 2021, the LPSC issued an order allowing SWEPCo to recover up to $20 million of fuel costs in 2021 and defer approximately $35 million of additional costs with a recovery period to be determined at a later date. In August 2022, the LPSC staff filed testimony recommending fuel disallowances of up to $55 million, including denial of recovery of the $35 million deferral, with refunds to customers over five years. In February 2024, an ALJ issued a final recommendation which included a proposed $55 million refund to customers and the denial of recovery of the $35 million deferral. SWEPCo filed a motion to present oral arguments with the LPSC to dispute the ALJ’s recommendations. In April 2024, the LPSC approved a unanimous settlement agreement filed by SWEPCo, LPSC staff and certain intervenors that resolved the fuel recovery dispute and resulted in a fuel disallowance of $11 million. The remaining $24 million regulatory asset balance will be recovered over three years with interest.

In March 2021, the APSC approved fuel rates that provide recovery of $20 million for the Arkansas share of the 2021 Dolet Hills Power Station fuel costs over five years through the existing fuel clause.

In September 2023, the PUCT approved an unopposed settlement agreement that provides recovery of $48 million of Oxbow mine related costs through 2035.

If any of these costs are not recoverable or customer refunds are required, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Pirkey Plant and Related Fuel Operations (Applies to AEP and SWEPCo)

In March 2023, the Pirkey Plant was retired. SWEPCo is recovering, or will seek recovery of, the remaining net book value of Pirkey Plant non-fuel costs. As of March 31, 2025, SWEPCo’s share of the net investment in the Pirkey Plant was $187 million, including materials and supplies, net of cost of removal. See the “Regulated Generating Units that have been Retired” section above for additional information. Fuel costs are recovered through active fuel clauses and are subject to prudency determinations by the various commissions. As of March 31, 2023, SWEPCo fuel deliveries, including billings of all fixed costs, from Sabine ceased. Additionally, as of March 31, 2025, SWEPCo had a net under-recovered fuel balance of $28 million, inclusive of costs related to the Pirkey Plant billed by Sabine, but excluding impacts of the February 2021 severe winter weather event. Remaining operational, reclamation and other land-related costs incurred by Sabine will be billed to SWEPCo and included in existing fuel clauses.

In July 2023, the LPSC ordered that a separate proceeding be established to review the prudence of the decision to retire the Pirkey Plant, including the costs included in fuel for years starting in 2019 and after. In April 2025, the LPSC determined the retirement of the Pirkey Plant was reasonable and prudent and authorized continued recovery of and on the remaining balance of the Pirkey Plant at SWEPCo’s weighted average cost of capital through 2032.

In September 2023, the PUCT approved an unopposed settlement agreement that provides recovery of $33 million of Sabine related fuel costs through 2035. In June 2024, SWEPCo filed a fuel reconciliation with the PUCT for its retail operation in Texas for the period of January 2022 through December 2023. The fuel reconciliation included approximately $535 million in Texas jurisdictional eligible fuel costs. In January 2025, intervenors filed testimony recommending a disallowance of Texas jurisdictional fuel costs ranging from $2 million to $33 million related to SWEPCo’s decision to retire the Pirkey Plant, management of fuel inventory and SWEPCo’s energy price offers in SPP. In April 2025, a settlement agreement was filed with the PUCT resolving the issues in the case and resulting in a one-time $6 million disallowance of fuel costs. An order is expected in 2025.

If any of these costs are not recoverable or customer refunds are required, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval (Applies to all Registrants except AEPTCo)

(a)Includes $37 million of unrecovered winter storm fuel costs recorded as a current regulatory asset as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. See the “February 2021 Severe Winter Weather Impacts in SPP” section below for additional information.

(b)See “Federal EPA’s Revised CCR Rule” section of Note 5 for additional information.

(c)See “NOLCs in Retail Jurisdictions - IRS PLRs” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information.

(a)See “Federal EPA’s Revised CCR Rule” section of Note 5 for additional information.

(b)In January 2025, winter storm Blair, followed by winter storms Harlow and Jett in February 2025, significantly impacted the Virginia and West Virginia service territories leading to damage to power lines, extended customer outages and extreme efforts to restore power to customers resulting in a deferral of $62 million and $21 million, respectively. Recovery of the costs relating to these storms will be addressed in a future request.

(a)See “Federal EPA’s Revised CCR Rule” section of Note 5 for additional information.

(b)See “NOLCs in Retail Jurisdictions - IRS PLRs” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information.

(a)See “NOLCs in Retail Jurisdictions - IRS PLRs” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information.

(a)Includes $37 million of unrecovered winter storm fuel costs recorded as a current regulatory asset as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. See the “February 2021 Severe Winter Weather Impacts in SPP” section below for additional information.

(b)Amounts include the FERC jurisdiction.

(c)See “NOLCs in Retail Jurisdictions - IRS PLRs” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information.

If these costs are ultimately determined not to be recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

AEP Texas Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and AEP Texas)

AEP Texas Interim Transmission and Distribution Rates

Through March 31, 2025, AEP Texas’ cumulative revenues from transmission and distribution interim base rate increases that are subject to review are estimated to be approximately $16 million. A base rate review could result in a refund to customers if AEP Texas incurs a disallowance of the transmission or distribution investment on which an interim increase was based. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that are reasonably possible of occurring. A revenue decrease, including a refund of interim transmission and distribution rates, could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

APCo and WPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and APCo)

ENEC (Expanded Net Energy Cost) Filings

In January 2024, the WVPSC issued an order resolving APCo’s and WPCo’s (the Companies) 2021-2023 ENEC cases. In the order, the WVPSC: (a) disallowed $232 million in ENEC under-recovered costs as of February 28, 2023 ($136 million related to APCo) and (b) approved the recovery of $321 million of ENEC under-recovered costs as of February 28, 2023 ($174 million related to APCo) plus a 4% debt carrying charge rate over aten-year recovery period starting September 1, 2024.

In February 2024, the Companies filed briefs with the West Virginia Supreme Court (WVSC) to initiate an appeal of the January 2024 order. Following arguments that were held in September 2024, the WVSC issued a November 2024 opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the WVPSC’s January 2024 ENEC order. The WVSC remanded the ENEC case to the WVPSC to afford the Companies an opportunity to examine, analyze, rebut and refute the calculation of the $232 million disallowance. In March 2025, the WVPSC entered an order in the Companies’ 2021-2023 ENEC cases further describing its calculations of the ordered $232 million disallowance. The Companies will file direct testimony addressing this order no later than June 2025. Staff and intervenor testimony is due in August 2025 and a hearing is scheduled for October 2025.

In April 2024, the Companies submitted their 2024 ENEC update case proposing a $58 million annual increase in ENEC rates when compared to existing ENEC rates. The Companies proposed that this ENEC rate change would: (a) become effective September 1, 2024, (b) include a $20 million annual increase in ENEC rates related to the period ending February 29, 2024 and the forecast period September 2024 through August 2025 and (c) include a $38 million annual increase in ENEC rates for the recovery of $321 million of ENEC under-recovered costs as of February 28, 2023 over aten-year period, plus a 4% debt carrying charge rate. In August 2024, the WVPSC issued an order approving the requested $38 million annual increase effective September 1, 2024. In March 2025, the WVPSC issued an order approving the requested $20 million annual increase effective March 11, 2025.

If the WVPSC modifies its previously ordered disallowance of ENEC costs associated with the 2021-2023 ENEC review, it would impact future net income, cash flows and financial condition.

Virginia Fuel Adjustment Clause (FAC) Review

In 2023, APCo submitted its annual fuel cost filing with the Virginia SCC. Interim Virginia FAC rates were implemented in November 2023. In APCo's 2022 Virginia fuel update filing, the Virginia SCC ordered the Virginia Staff to commence an audit of APCo’s fuel costs for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. The Virginia staff analyzed APCo’s 2019 through 2022 fuel procurement activities and concluded the procurement practices were reasonable and prudent and recommended no disallowances. In May 2024, the Virginia SCC issued an order approving the audit of APCo’s 2019 and 2020 fuel costs but concluded that the review of APCo fuel costs for 2021 and 2022 remains open for further evaluation as part of APCo’s 2024 fuel cost filing.

In September 2024, APCo submitted its annual Virginia fuel cost filing with the Virginia SCC proposing no change in annual APCo Virginia FAC rates charged to customers. In January 2025, an intervening party recommended a minimum fuel under-recovery disallowance of $20 million related to alleged imprudent operations of Amos and Mountaineer generating units during October 2021 and November 2021. There were no other recommended disallowances by intervenors or Virginia Staff regarding APCo’s historical period Virginia fuel under-recovery balance through October 31, 2024. Virginia Staff recommended that the Virginia SCC close APCo’s open review periods related to 2021 and 2022 Virginia fuel costs. A hearing was held in February 2025. In March 2025, the Hearing Examiner re-opened the record to obtain additional information to resolve certain issues. In April 2025, APCo and an intervenor submitted supplemental testimony with the intervenor continuing to recommend a $20 million disallowance. A hearing is scheduled for May 2025.

If any fuel costs are not recoverable or refunds are ordered, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2024 West Virginia Base Rate Case

In November 2024, APCo and WPCo (the Companies) filed a request with the WVPSC for a net $251 million annual increase in base rates based upon a proposed 10.8% ROE and a proposed capital structure of 52% debt and 48% common equity. The requested net annual increase in base rates excludes the Companies’ proposed $94 million annual Modified Rate Base Cost (MRBC) surcharge update proposed to be effective in a separate proceeding and the existing $21 million annual Mitchell Base Rate Surcharge that are both proposed to be rolled into base rates upon the Companies’ anticipated 2025 change in base rates. The Companies’ proposed base rate increase includes recovery of approximately $118 million in previously deferred major storm expenses over athree-year period plus a carrying charge on the deferral balance, capital structure changes including an increase in ROE, an increase in depreciation expense related to proposed changes in depreciation rates and increased capital investments and increases in distribution and generation operation and maintenance expenses.

The Companies’ November 2024 West Virginia base rate filing also included two sets of alternative frameworks to simplify rates and customer bills and provide predictable future rate increases. The Companies’ first framework includes: (a) securitization, (b) approval of a major storm expense recovery and tracking mechanism and (c) freezing of OATT revenues in the ENEC. This framework includes securitization in a concurrent proceeding of approximately $2.4 billion of West Virginia jurisdictional assets. Securitization of those items could reduce the Companies’ combined requested increase in annual base rates to $37 million. See the “2025 West Virginia Securitization Filing” section below for additional information.

The Companies also included an alternative ratemaking proposal that includes: (a) a separate surcharge that would allow the Companies up to a 3% annual increase in overall West Virginia rates forfour consecutive years on April 1 st of each year after the implementation of base rates in this case, (b) the elimination of all of the Companies’ existing West Virginia jurisdictional surcharges except for the ENEC, with the revenues of these eliminated riders rolled into base rates and (c) the creation of a new West Virginia jurisdictional environmental and new generation surcharge. This alternative proposal would allow the Companies to submit a base rate case filing in advance of and in lieu of the annual April 1st 3% increase and would require the Companies to submit a base rate case filing at the end of the proposed four-year period.

In April 2025, a hearing was held at the WVPSC to review the Companies’ separate depreciation filing. Also in April 2025, WVPSC staff and intervenors submitted testimony regarding the Companies’ base rate filing recommending combined APCo and WPCo base rate increases ranging from $49 million to $91 million based on proposed ROEs ranging from 9.1% to 9.25%. These base rate recommendations included significant decreases in rate base for the use of a 13-month average rate base rather than a year-end rate base as proposed by the Companies, and also included various reductions to the Companies’ proposed ongoing levels of depreciation expense and other operation and maintenance expenses. WVPSC staff recommended that the WVPSC approve the Companies’ requested recovery of $118 million of deferred extraordinary storm costs over afive-year period rather than the proposed three-year recovery period, while also recommending that the WVPSC reject the Companies’ proposal of a carrying charge on the storm deferral balance. WVPSC staff and an intervenor also recommended that the WVPSC deny the ratemaking impact of NOLC and reject the Companies’ request to continue the MRBC surcharge. A hearing is scheduled for June 2025.

For the Companies’ first proposed alternative ratemaking framework described above, WVPSC staff and intervenors recommended that the WVPSC: a) consider securitization subject to certain conditions, b) approve the Companies’ proposed major storm deferral accounting for major storm other operation and maintenance expenses against the level embedded in the development of base rates, and c) reject the proposed freeze of OATT revenues in the ENEC. WVPSC staff and intervenors generally recommended that the WVPSC reject the Companies’ second proposed alternative ratemaking framework described above.

If any costs included in this filing are not approved for recovery, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

West Virginia Modified Rate Base Cost (MRBC) Surcharge Update Filing

In March 2024, APCo and WPCo (the Companies) submitted an annual MRBC surcharge update filing with the WVPSC requesting a $32 million annual increase in the Companies’ combined MRBC rates. The MRBC is an infrastructure investment tracker that allows limited cost recovery related to capital investments between the Companies’ West Virginia jurisdictional base rate cases. WVPSC staff and an intervening party recommended revenue requirement disallowances in written and verbal testimony and briefs for certain ratemaking issues used to develop the Companies’ proposed MRBC rates, including the West Virginia jurisdictional effect of state deferred income taxes, NOLC and AROs. If any refund liabilities are imposed by the WVPSC, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2025 West Virginia Securitization Filing

In March 2025, APCo and WPCo (the Companies) requested to finance, through the issuance of securitization bonds, approximately $2.4 billion of West Virginia jurisdictional undepreciated property balances and regulatory assets including: (a) $321 million of the Companies’ remaining combined unrecovered ENEC balance related to costs incurred through February 28, 2023, (b) $1.7 billion of undepreciated West Virginia jurisdictional plant balances as of December 31, 2022 for the Amos, Mitchell and Mountaineer Plants, (c) $237 million of environmental costs previously approved for recovery through a separate West Virginia surcharge and (d) $118 million of West Virginia jurisdictional major storm operation and maintenance costs deferred as of June 2024. The proposed securitized items breakout for the Companies is shown in the table below:

The Companies also proposed that the WVPSC consider approving the securitization of additional ENEC under-recovered costs, such as those costs approved in the 2024 ENEC case, as well as additional deferred West Virginia jurisdictional major storm operation and maintenance costs, such as those associated with Hurricane Helene and Winter Storms Blair, Harlow and Jett.

The WVPSC issued a procedural schedule for the Companies’ securitization filing with testimony due in May 2025 and a hearing scheduled for July 2025.

ETT Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

ETT Interim Transmission Rates

AEP has a 50% equity ownership interest in ETT. Predominantly all of ETT’s revenues are based on interim rate changes that can be filed twice annually and are subject to review and possible true-up in the next base rate proceeding. Through March 31, 2025, AEP’s share of ETT’s cumulative revenues from interim base rate increases that are subject to a prudency review is approximately $1.9 billion. The 2025 ETT base rate case described below could result in a refund to customers if ETT incurs a disallowance of the transmission investment on which an interim increase was based. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that are reasonably possible of occurring. A revenue decrease, including a refund of interim transmission rates, could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2025 ETT Base Rate Case

In January 2025, ETT filed a request with the PUCT for a $57 million annual base rate increase over its adjusted test year revenues which includes interim transmission rate updates. ETT’s request is based upon a proposed 10.6% ROE with a capital structure of 55% debt and 45% common equity. The rate case seeks a prudence review determination on cumulative capital additions included in interim rates. In April and May 2025, respectively, intervenors and PUCT staff submitted testimony challenging components of the proposed rate increase including up to $37 million related to increased depreciation rates and $32 million related to the proposed ROE and capital structure. A hearing is scheduled for June 2025. If any of the costs in the case are not recoverable or revenues collected under interim transmission rates are ordered to be returned, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

I&M Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and I&M)

2023 Michigan Power Supply Cost Recovery (PSCR) Reconciliation

In March 2024, I&M submitted its 2023 PSCR Reconciliation to the MPSC. In October 2024, MPSC staff and intervenors submitted testimony recommending PSCR cost disallowances associated with the OVEC Inter-Company Power Agreement (ICPA) and the Rockport UPA with AEGCo ranging from $3 million to $15 million. In March 2025, an ALJ issued a PFD recommending $12 million of combined cost disallowances related to the OVEC ICPA and the Rockport UPA. An order is expected in the second quarter of 2025. If any PSCR costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Indiana Earnings Test

I&M is required by Indiana law to submit an earnings test evaluation for the most recent one-year and five-year periods as part of I&M’s semi-annual Indiana FAC filings. These earnings test evaluations require I&M to include a credit in the FAC factor computation for periods in which I&M earned above its authorized return for both the one-year and five-year periods. The credit is determined as 50% of the lower of the one-year or five-year earnings above the authorized level. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of the Indiana earnings test requirements. If future IURC orders require that I&M provide credits in the FAC factor computation, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

In January 2025, I&M submitted its FAC filing and earnings test evaluation for the period ended November 2024. I&M proposed an over-earnings credit to customers for the earnings test period ending November 2024 of $21 million. In April 2025, the IURC issued an order approving the $21 million customer credit.

KPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

Investigation of the Service, Rates and Facilities of KPCo

In June 2023, the KPSC issued an order directing KPCo to show cause why it should not be subject to Kentucky statutory remedies, including fines and penalties, for failure to provide adequate service in its service territory. The KPSC’s show cause order did not make any determination regarding the adequacy of KPCo’s service. In July 2023, KPCo filed a response to the show cause order demonstrating that it has provided adequate service. In December 2023 and February 2024, KPCo and certain intervenors filed testimony with the KPSC. A hearing with the KPSC was previously scheduled to occur in June 2024. The hearing was postponed and has not yet been rescheduled. If any fines or penalties are levied against KPCo relating to the show cause order, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2023 Kentucky Base Rate and Securitization Case

In June 2023, KPCo filed a request with the KPSC for a $94 million net annual increase in base rates based upon a proposed 9.9% ROE with the increase to be implemented no earlier than January 2024. In conjunction with its June 2023 filing, KPCo further requested to finance through the issuance of securitization bonds, approximately $471 million of regulatory assets. KPCo’s proposal did not address the disposition of its 50% interest in Mitchell Plant, which will be addressed in the future. As of March 31, 2025, the net book value of KPCo’s share of the Mitchell Plant, before cost of removal including CWIP and inventory, was $542 million.

In November 2023, KPCo filed an uncontested settlement agreement with the KPSC, that included an annual base rate increase of $75 million, based upon a 9.75% ROE. Settlement parties agreed that the KPSC should approve KPCo’s securitization request, and that the approximately $471 million regulatory assets requested for securitization are comprised of prudently incurred costs.

In January 2024, the KPSC issued an order modifying the November 2023 uncontested settlement agreement and approving an annual base rate increase of $60 million based upon a 9.75% ROE effective with billing cycles mid-January 2024. The order reduced KPCo’s base rate revenue requirement by $14 million to allow recovery of actual test year PJM transmission costs instead of KPCo’s requested annual level of costs based on PJM 2023 projected transmission revenue requirements. In February 2024, KPCo filed an appeal with the Commonwealth of Kentucky Franklin Circuit Court (Circuit Court), challenging among other aspects of the order, the $14 million base rate revenue requirement reduction. In January 2025, the Circuit Court issued an order agreeing with KPCo’s appeal and remanded this issue back to the KPSC with instructions to enter an order, within 30 days, which includes setting rates to allow KPCo to recover the $14 million of annual PJM transmission costs effective upon KPCo's January 2024 implementation of updated base rates. In March 2025, the KPSC issued a rehearing order that approved rates for the prospective collection of test year PJM transmission costs beginning in February 2025 but denied KPCo’s request to defer and recover the historical PJM transmission costs of approximately $16 million incurred since January 2024. In April 2025, KPCo filed an appeal with the Circuit Court in response to the KPSC’s denial to recover PJM transmission costs incurred from January 2024 through the implementation of new rates.

In January 2024, consistent with the November 2023 uncontested settlement agreement, the KPSC issued a financing order approving KPCo’s request to securitize certain regulatory asset 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 2025, subject to market conditions. As of March 31, 2025, regulatory asset balances expected to be recovered through securitization total $495 million and include: (a) $307 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) $56 million of under-recovered purchased power rider costs and (e) $3 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.

OPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and OPCo)

OVEC Cost Recovery Audits

In December 2021, as part of OVEC cost recovery audits pending before the PUCO, intervenors filed positions claiming that costs incurred by OPCo during the 2018-2019 audit period were imprudent and should be disallowed. In May 2022, intervenors filed for rehearing on the 2016-2017 OVEC cost recovery audit period claiming the PUCO’s April 2022 order to adopt the findings of the audit report were unjust, unlawful and unreasonable for multiple reasons, including the position that OPCo recovered imprudently incurred costs. In May 2023, as part of the OVEC cost recovery audits pending before the PUCO, intervenors filed positions claiming that costs incurred by OPCo during the 2020 audit period were imprudent and should be disallowed.

In August 2024, the PUCO issued orders pertaining to the OVEC cost recovery audits that: (a) denied intervenors’ application for rehearing on the 2016-2017 audit period, (b) determined costs incurred by OPCo during the 2018-2019 audit period were prudent, (c) determined costs incurred by OPCo during the 2020 audit period were prudent and (d) recommended no disallowances for any mentioned audit period in question. In September 2024, intervenors filed for rehearing on the 2018-2019 and 2020 OVEC cost recovery audit periods claiming the PUCO’s August 2024 orders to adopt the findings of the audit reports were unjust, unlawful and unreasonable for multiple reasons, including the position that OPCo recovered imprudently incurred costs. In October 2024, the PUCO denied the intervenors’ applications for rehearing of the 2018-2019 and 2020 audit periods. In December 2024, intervenors filed appeals with the Supreme Court of Ohio on the PUCO’s denial for rehearing.

In February and March 2025, as part of OVEC cost recovery audits pending before the PUCO, intervenors filed positions claiming that costs incurred by OPCo during the 2021-2023 audit period were imprudent and should be disallowed. Management disagrees with these claims and is unable to predict the impact of these disputes. If any costs are disallowed or refunds are ordered, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Ohio Legislation (HB 15)

In April 2025, Ohio House Bill 15 (HB 15) was approved by the Ohio legislature, which if enacted to law, would: (a) alter rate-setting mechanisms by replacing ESPs with triennial base rate cases based on a three-year forecasted test period, effective with the end of OPCo’s previously approved ESP which ends in May 2028, (b) eliminate OPCo’s ability to recover from, or refund to, customers the difference between purchased power expenses from OVEC and the market revenues OPCo receives from that purchased power as of the effective date of the law and (c) repeal the statute that permits electric distribution utilities, including OPCo, to execute contracts to provide customer-sited renewable generation service such as fuel cell technology or other renewable resources prospectively. HB 15 is subject to review by the Governor of Ohio.

As a result of the legislature’s approval of HB 15, in the first quarter of 2025, OPCo recorded a $35 million estimated reduction to its OVEC-related purchased power regulatory asset for deferred net costs that are no longer probable of future recovery. Management is unable to predict the future impact to net income, cash flows and financial condition arising from the future changes in OPCo’s rate setting mechanisms and the elimination of OPCo’s ability to recover from, or refund to, customers the difference between purchased power expenses from OVEC and the market revenues OPCo receives from that purchased power.

PSO Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and PSO)

2024 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In January 2024, PSO filed a request with the OCC for a $218 million annual base rate increase based upon a 10.8% ROE with a capital structure of 48.9% debt and 51.1% common equity. PSO requested an expanded transmission cost recovery rider and a mechanism to recover generation costs necessary to comply with SPP’s 2023 increased capacity planning reserve margin requirements. PSO’s request includes the 155 MW Rock Falls Wind Facility and reflects recovery of Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 through 2040.

In October 2024, PSO, the OCC and certain intervenors filed a joint stipulation and settlement agreement with the OCC that included a net annual revenue increase of $120 million based upon a 9.5% ROE with a capital structure of 48.9% debt and 51.1% common equity. The agreement also allows for Rock Falls Wind Facility to be included in base rates and the deferral of certain generation-related costs necessary to comply with SPP’s 2023 increased capacity reserve margin requirements. One intervenor opposed the joint stipulation and settlement agreement. In October 2024, a hearing was held at the OCC, and PSO implemented an interim annual base rate increase of $120 million, subject to refund pending a final order by the OCC.

In January 2025, the OCC issued a final order approving the joint stipulation and settlement agreement without modification. In February 2025, an Oklahoma state representative filed an appeal of the final order in PSO’s base rate case. The appeal does not contest the reasonableness of the rates established under the joint stipulation and settlement agreement approved without modification in the final order, but rather raises issues related to one OCC commissioner’s participation in voting on the order and the sufficiency of an OCC audit. If the appeal is successful and the OCC modifies the final order in a future proceeding, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

SWEPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and SWEPCo)

2020 Texas Base Rate Case

In October 2020, SWEPCo filed a request with the PUCT for a $105 million annual increase in Texas base rates based upon a proposed 10.35% ROE. The request would move transmission and distribution interim revenues recovered through riders into base rates. Eliminating these riders would result in a net annual requested base rate increase of $90 million primarily due to increased investments. SWEPCo subsequently filed a request with the PUCT lowering the requested annual increase in Texas base rates to $100 million, which would result in an $85 million net annual base rate increase after moving the proposed riders to rate base.

In January 2022, the PUCT issued a final order approving an annual revenue increase of $39 million based upon a 9.25% ROE. The order also includes: (a) rates implemented retroactively back to March 18, 2021, (b) $5 million of the proposed increase related to vegetation management, (c) $2 million annually to establish a storm catastrophe reserve and (d) the creation of a rider to recover the Dolet Hills Power Station as if it were in rate base until its retirement at the end of 2021 and starting in 2022 the remaining net book value to be recovered as a regulatory asset through 2046. As a result of the final order, SWEPCo recorded a disallowance of $12 million in 2021 associated with the lack of return on the Dolet Hills Power Station. In February 2022, SWEPCo filed a motion for rehearing with the PUCT challenging several errors in the order, which include challenges of the approved ROE, the denial of a reasonable return or carrying costs on the Dolet Hills Power Station and the calculation of the Texas jurisdictional share of the storm catastrophe reserve. In April 2022, the PUCT denied the motion for rehearing. In May 2022, SWEPCo filed a petition for review with the Texas District Court seeking judicial review of the several errors challenged in the PUCT’s final order.

February 2021 Severe Winter Weather Impacts in SPP

In February 2021, severe winter weather had a significant impact in SPP, resulting in significantly increased market prices for natural gas power plants to meet reliability needs for the SPP electric system. For the time period of February 9, 2021 to February 20, 2021, SWEPCo’s natural gas expenses and purchases of electricity still to be recovered from customers are shown in the table below:

(a)SWEPCo is permitted to record carrying costs on the unrecovered balance of fuel costs at a weighted-cost of capital approved by the APSC. In August 2024, the APSC issued an order that found SWEPCo had prudently incurred these costs.

(b)In March 2021, the LPSC approved a special order granting a temporary modification to the FAC and shortly after SWEPCo began recovery of its Louisiana jurisdictional share of these fuel costs based on afive-year recovery period inclusive of an interim carrying charge equal to the prime rate. The special order states the fuel and purchased power costs incurred will be subject to a future LPSC audit.

If SWEPCo is unable to recover any of the costs relating to the extraordinary fuel and purchases of electricity, or obtain authorization of a reasonable carrying charge on these costs, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2025 Arkansas Base Rate Case

In March 2025, SWEPCo filed a request with the APSC for a $114 million annual base rate increase based upon a 10.9% ROE with a capital structure of 52.3% debt and 47.7% common equity. The increase includes the Arkansas jurisdictional share of Diversion and Wagon Wheel wind facilities. SWEPCo is also electing to have its rates regulated under a Formula Rate Review mechanism. If any costs included in this filing are not approved for recovery, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

PSO and SWEPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP, PSO and SWEPCo)

North Central Wind Energy Facilities (NCWF)

The NCWF are subject to various regulatory performance requirements, including a Net Capacity Factor (NCF) guarantee. The NCF guarantee will be measured in MWhs across all facilities on a combined basis for each five year period for the first thirty full years of operation. The first NCF guarantee five year period began in April 2022. Certain wind turbines experienced performance issues that prompted PSO and SWEPCo to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer, which led to an agreement between PSO and SWEPCo and the manufacturer that addressed the performance issues. If regulatory performance requirements, such as the NCF guarantee, are not met, PSO and SWEPCo may recognize a regulatory liability associated with a refund to retail customers. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring.

FERC Rate Matters

Independence Energy Connection Project (Applies to AEP)

In 2016, PJM approved the Independence Energy Connection Project (IEC) and included it in its Regional Transmission Expansion Plan to alleviate congestion. Transource Energy has an ownership interest in the IEC, which is located in Maryland and Pennsylvania. In June 2020, the Maryland Public Service Commission approved a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct the portion of the IEC in Maryland. In May 2021, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PAPUC) denied the IEC certificate for siting and construction of the portion in Pennsylvania. Transource Energy appealed the PAPUC ruling in Pennsylvania state court and challenged the ruling before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In May 2022, the Pennsylvania state court issued an order affirming the PAPUC decision as to state law claims. In December 2023, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of Transource Energy, finding that the PAPUC decision violated federal law and the United States Constitution. In January 2024, the PAPUC filed an appeal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which is currently pending and awaiting decision. Additional regulatory proceedings before the PAPUC are expected to resume in 2025 or 2026.

In September 2021, PJM notified Transource Energy that the IEC was suspended to allow for the regulatory and related appeals process to proceed in an orderly manner without breaching milestone dates in the project agreement. At that time, PJM stated that the IEC has not been canceled and remains necessary to alleviate congestion. PJM continues to evaluate reliability and market efficiency in the area. As of March 31, 2025, AEP’s share of IEC capital expenditures was approximately $97 million, located in Total Property, Plant and Equipment - Net on AEP’s balance sheets. The FERC has previously granted abandonment benefits for this project, allowing the full recovery of prudently incurred costs if the project is canceled for reasons outside the control of Transource Energy. If any of the IEC costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

FERC 2021 PJM and SPP Transmission Formula Rate Challenge (Applies to all Registrant Subsidiaries except AEP Texas)

The Registrants transitioned to stand-alone treatment of NOLCs in their 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. The annual revenue requirement increase as a result of the transition to stand-alone treatment of NOLCs for transmission formula rates is shown in the table below:

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.

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.

As a result of the January 2024 FERC orders, the Registrants’ balance sheets have reflected a liability for the probable refund of all NOLC revenues included in transmission formula rates for years 2021 through 2025, with interest. The Registrants have not yet been directed to make cash refunds related to 2022 through 2025 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 remaining 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.

Request to Update SWEPCo Generation Depreciation Rates (Applies to AEP and SWEPCo)

In October 2023, SWEPCo filed an application to revise its generation wholesale customer’s contracts to reflect an increase in the annual revenue requirement of approximately $5 million for updated depreciation rates and allow for the return on and of FERC customers jurisdictional share of regulatory assets associated with retired plants. In November 2023, certain intervenors filed a motion with the FERC protesting and recommending the rejection of SWEPCo’s filings. In December 2023, the FERC issued an order approving the proposed rates effective January 1, 2024, subject to further review and refund and established hearing and settlement proceedings. If SWEPCo is unable to recover the remaining regulatory assets associated with retired plants, or refunds of revenues collected under interim rates are ordered to be returned, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Transmission Agreement Cost Allocation Complaint (Applies to AEP, APCo, I&M and OPCo)

In March 2025, the KPSC and the Attorney General of Kentucky filed a complaint at the FERC against AEPSC and the AEP East Companies challenging the manner in which costs are allocated for local transmission projects pursuant to the TA. The complaint contends that certain costs allocated to KPCo are unjust, unreasonable and provide no benefit to KPCo customers. The relief requested in the complaint includes requiring a revision to the TA so that the costs for local transmission projects remain exclusively with the retail distribution service territory where the project is located unless a specific project is granted approval to establish a different cost allocation by the state commissions. Various parties have filed comments and motions to intervene. In May 2025, AEP filed a motion to dismiss and respond to the complaint. If the FERC orders a change in the way costs are allocated pursuant to the TA it could impact future net income, cash flows and financial condition.

5. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES

The Registrants are subject to certain claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, the Registrants’ business activities are subject to extensive governmental regulation related to public health and the environment. The ultimate outcome of such pending or potential litigation against the Registrants cannot be predicted. Management accrues contingent liabilities only when management concludes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. When management determines that it is not probable, but rather reasonably possible that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements, management discloses such contingencies and the possible loss or range of loss if such estimate can be made. Any estimated range is based on currently available information and involves elements of judgment and significant uncertainties. Any estimated range of possible loss may not represent the maximum possible loss exposure. Circumstances change over time and actual results may vary significantly from estimates.

For current proceedings not specifically discussed below, management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, arising from such proceedings would have a material effect on the financial statements. The Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies note within the 2024 Annual Report should be read in conjunction with this report.

GUARANTEES

Liabilities for guarantees are recorded in accordance with the accounting guidance for “Guarantees.” There is no collateral held in relation to any guarantees. In the event any guarantee is drawn, there is no recourse to third-parties unless specified below.

Letters of Credit (Applies to AEP and SWEPCo)

Standby letters of credit are entered into with third-parties. These letters of credit are issued in the ordinary course of business and cover items such as natural gas and electricity risk management contracts, construction contracts, insurance programs, security deposits and debt service reserves.

AEP has $5 billion and $1 billion revolving credit facilities due in March 2029 and March 2027, respectively. AEP may issue up to $1.2 billion as letters of credit under these revolving credit facilities on behalf of subsidiaries. As of March 31, 2025, no letters of credit were issued under either revolving credit facility.

An uncommitted facility gives the issuer of the facility the right to accept or decline each request made under the facility. AEP issues letters of credit on behalf of subsidiaries undersix uncommitted facilities totaling $450 million. The Registrants’ maximum future payments for letters of credit issued under the uncommitted facilities as of March 31, 2025 were as follows:

In April 2025, AEP issued an additional $52 million of letters of credit under existing uncommitted facilities with maturity dates ranging from October 2025 to April 2026.

Indemnifications and Other Guarantees

Contracts

The Registrants enter into certain types of contracts which require indemnifications. Typically these contracts include, but are not limited to, sale agreements, lease agreements, purchase agreements and financing agreements. Generally, these agreements may include, but are not limited to, indemnifications around certain tax, contractual and environmental matters. With respect to sale agreements, exposure generally does not exceed the sale price. As of March 31, 2025, there were no material liabilities recorded for any indemnifications.

AEPSC conducts power purchase-and-sale activity on behalf of APCo, I&M, KPCo and WPCo, who are jointly and severally liable for activity conducted on their behalf. AEPSC also conducts power purchase-and-sale activity on behalf of PSO and SWEPCo, who are jointly and severally liable for activity conducted on their behalf.

Master Lease Agreements (Applies to all Registrants except AEPTCo)

The Registrants lease certain equipment under master lease agreements. Under the lease agreements, the lessor is guaranteed a residual value up to a stated percentage of the equipment cost at the end of the lease term. If the actual fair value of the leased equipment is below the guaranteed residual value at the end of the lease term, the Registrants are committed to pay the difference between the actual fair value and the residual value guarantee. Historically, at the end of the lease term the fair value has been in excess of the amount guaranteed. As of March 31, 2025, the maximum potential loss by the Registrants for these lease agreements assuming the fair value of the equipment is zero at the end of the lease term was as follows:

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTINGENCIES (Applies to all Registrants except AEPTCo)

Federal EPA’s Revised CCR Rule

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. In the second quarter of 2024, AEP evaluated the applicability of the rule to current and former plant sites and recorded a $674 million increase in ARO, 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.

As further groundwater monitoring and other analysis is performed, management expects to refine the assumptions and underlying cost estimates used in recording the ARO. These refinements may include, but are not limited to, changes in the expected method of closure, changes in estimated quantities of CCR at each site, the identification of new CCR management units, among other items. These future changes could have a material impact on the ARO and materially reduce future net income and cash flows and further impact financial condition.

AEP will seek cost recovery through regulated rates, including proposal of new regulatory mechanisms for cost recovery where existing mechanisms are not applicable. The rule could have an additional, material adverse impact on net income, cash flows and financial condition if AEP cannot ultimately recover these additional costs of compliance. Several parties, including AEP and one of its trade associations, have filed petitions for review of the rule with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. One of the parties also filed a motion to stay the rule pending the outcome of the litigation. In November 2024, the court denied the stay motion. The litigation is being held in abeyance until June 13, 2025, to allow the new administration time to evaluate its position on the 2024 rule. Management cannot predict the outcome of the litigation or any further actions by the Federal EPA related to the rule.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund) and State Remediation

By-products from the generation of electricity include materials such as ash, slag, sludge, low-level radioactive waste and SNF. Coal combustion by-products, which constitute the overwhelming percentage of these materials, are typically treated and deposited in captive disposal facilities or are beneficially utilized. In addition, the generation plants and transmission and distribution facilities have used asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls and other hazardous and non-hazardous materials. The

Registrants currently incur costs to dispose of these substances safely. For remediation processes not specifically discussed, management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, arising from such remediation processes would have a material effect on the financial statements.

NUCLEAR CONTINGENCIES (Applies to AEP and I&M)

I&M owns and operates the Cook Plant under licenses granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I&M has a significant future financial commitment to dispose of SNF and to safely decommission and decontaminate the plant. The licenses to operate thetwo nuclear units at the Cook Plant expire in 2034 and 2037. Management has started the application process for license extensions for both units that would extend Unit 1 and Unit 2 to 2054 and 2057, respectively. The operation of a nuclear facility also involves special risks, potential liabilities and specific regulatory and safety requirements. By agreement, I&M is partially liable, together with all other electric utility companies that own nuclear generation units, for a nuclear power plant incident at any nuclear plant in the U.S. Should a nuclear incident occur at any nuclear power plant in the U.S., the resultant liability could be substantial.

OPERATIONAL CONTINGENCIES

Insurance and Potential Losses

The Registrants maintain insurance coverage normal and customary for electric utilities, subject to various deductibles. The Registrants also maintain property and casualty insurance that may cover certain physical damage or third-party injuries caused by cybersecurity incidents. Insurance coverage includes all risks of physical loss or damage to nonnuclear assets, subject to insurance policy conditions and exclusions. Covered property generally includes power plants, substations, facilities and inventories. Excluded property generally includes transmission and distribution lines, poles and towers. The insurance programs also generally provide coverage against loss arising from certain claims made by third-parties and are in excess of retentions absorbed by the Registrants. Coverage is generally provided by a combination of the protected cell of EIS and/or various industry mutual and/or commercial insurance carriers.

In July 2024, the Registrants renewed insurance programs including coverage for wildfire liability. Some potential losses or liabilities may not be insurable or the amount of insurance carried may not be sufficient to meet potential losses and liabilities, including, but not limited to, liabilities relating to a cybersecurity incident, extreme weather or wildfire related liabilities or damage to the Cook Plant and costs of replacement power in the event of an incident at the Cook Plant. Future losses or liabilities, if they occur, which are not completely insured, unless recovered through the ratemaking process, could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Claims for Indemnification Made by Owners of the Gavin Power Station (Applies to AEP)

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 “Environmental Issues - CCR Rule” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 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, if any, that is reasonably possible of occurring.

6. DISPOSITIONS

The disclosures in this note apply to AEP unless indicated otherwise.

Disposition of NMRD (Generation & Marketing Segment) (Applies to AEP)

In December 2023, AEP and the joint owner signed an agreement to sell NMRD to a nonaffiliated third party and the sale was completed in February 2024. AEP received cash proceeds of approximately $107 million, net of taxes and transaction costs. The transaction did not have a material impact on net income or financial condition.

7. BENEFIT PLANS

The disclosures in this note apply to all Registrants except AEPTCo.

AEPSC sponsors a qualified pension plan andtwo unfunded non-qualified pension plans. Substantially all AEP subsidiary employees are covered by the qualified plan or both the qualified and a non-qualified pension plan. AEPSC also sponsors OPEB plans to provide health and life insurance benefits for retired employees.

Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost (Credit)

Pension Plans

OPEB

8. BUSINESS SEGMENTS

AEP’s Reportable Segments

AEP’s primary business is the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. Within its Vertically Integrated Utilities segment, AEP centrally dispatches generation assets and manages its overall utility operations on an integrated basis because of the substantial impact of cost-based rates and regulatory oversight applicable to each public utility subsidiary. Intersegment sales and transfers are generally based on underlying contractual arrangements and agreements.

AEP’s reportable segments and their related business activities are outlined below:

Vertically Integrated Utilities

•Generation, transmission and distribution of electricity for sale to retail and wholesale customers through assets owned and operated by AEGCo, APCo, I&M, KGPCo, KPCo, PSO, SWEPCo and WPCo.

Transmission and Distribution Utilities

•Transmission and distribution of electricity for sale to retail and wholesale customers through assets owned and operated by AEP Texas and OPCo.

•OPCo purchases energy and capacity to serve standard service offer customers and provides transmission and distribution services for all connected load.

AEP Transmission Holdco

•Development, construction and operation of transmission facilities through investments in AEPTCo. These investments have FERC-approved ROEs.

•Development, construction and operation of transmission facilities through investments in AEP’s transmission-only joint ventures. These investments have PUCT-approved or FERC-approved ROEs.

Generation & Marketing

•Marketing, risk management and retail activities in ERCOT, MISO, PJM and SPP.

•Competitive generation in PJM.

The remainder of AEP’s activities are presented as Corporate and Other. While not considered a reportable segment, Corporate and Other primarily includes the purchasing of receivables from certain AEP utility subsidiaries, Parent’s guarantee revenue received from affiliates, investment income, interest income and interest expense, income tax expense and other nonallocated costs.

The CODM of AEP is the President and CEO of AEP, whomakes operating decisions, allocates resources to and assesses performance based on these reportable segments. The CODM uses earnings (loss) attributable to AEP common shareholders (presented on a GAAP basis) as a measure of segment profit or loss in making these decisions. Earnings (loss) attributable to AEP common shareholders includes intercompany revenues and expenses that are eliminated on the consolidated financial statements.

The tables below represent AEP’s reportable segment income statement information for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024 and reportable segment balance sheet information as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024. The significant expenses disclosed below align with the segment-level information that is regularly provided to the CODM.

(a)Corporate and Other primarily includes the purchasing of receivables from certain AEP utility subsidiaries. This segment also includes Parent’s guarantee revenue received from affiliates, investment income, interest income and interest expense, income tax expense and other nonallocated costs.

(b)Represents intersegment revenues.

(c)Other segment items included in segment earnings (loss) attributable to AEP common shareholders primarily includes Interest and Dividend Income, Non-Service Cost Components of Net Period Benefit Cost and Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests.

(d)Includes elimination of AEP Parent’s investments in wholly-owned subsidiary companies.

(e)Reconciling Adjustments for Total Assets primarily include elimination of intercompany advances to affiliates and intercompany accounts receivable.

Registrant Subsidiaries’ Reportable Segments (Applies to all Registrant Subsidiaries except AEPTCo)

The Registrant Subsidiaries each haveone reportable segment, an integrated electricity generation, transmission and distribution business for APCo, I&M, PSO and SWEPCo, and an integrated electricity transmission and distribution business for AEP Texas and OPCo. Other activities are insignificant. The Registrant Subsidiaries’ operations are managed on an integrated basis because of the substantial impact of cost-based rates and regulatory oversight on the business process, cost structures and operating results. The CODM of each Registrant Subsidiary is the AEP President and CEO, who makes operating decisions, allocates resources to and assesses performance based on these reportable segments. The CODM uses net income (loss) that is reported on the Registrant Subsidiaries’ statements of income as a measure of segment profit or loss in making these decisions. Net income (loss) includes intercompany revenues and expenses that are eliminated on the consolidated financial statements. The expenses disclosed on the Registrant Subsidiaries’ statements of income align with the segment-level significant expenses that are regularly provided to the CODM. Total Assets is reported on the consolidated financial statements. Gross Property Additions for the Registrant Subsidiaries is represented by the sum of Construction Expenditures and Acquisition of Assets on the consolidated financial statements. See Registrant Subsidiaries statements of income, balance sheets and cash flows for details.

AEPTCo’s Reportable Segments

AEPTCo Parent is the holding company ofseven FERC-regulated transmission-only electric utilities. Theseven State Transcos have been identified as operating segments of AEPTCo under the accounting guidance for “Segment Reporting.” The State Transcos business consists of developing, constructing and operating transmission facilities at the request of the RTOs in which they operate and in replacing and upgrading facilities, assets and components of the existing AEP transmission system as needed to maintain reliability standards and provide service to AEP’s wholesale and retail customers. The State Transcos are regulated for ratemaking purposes exclusively by the FERC and earn revenues through tariff rates charged for the use of their electric transmission systems.

The CODM of AEPTCo is the AEP President and CEO, who makes operating decisions, allocates resources to and assesses performance based on these operating segments. The State Transcos operating segments all have similar economic characteristics and meet all of the criteria under the accounting guidance for “Segment Reporting” to be aggregated intoone reportable segment. As a result, AEPTCo hasone reportable segment. The remainder of AEPTCo’s activity is presented in AEPTCo Parent. While not considered a reportable segment, AEPTCo Parent represents the activity of the holding company which primarily relates to debt financing activity and general corporate activities.

The tables below present AEPTCo’s reportable segment income statement information for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024 and reportable segment balance sheet information as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024. The significant expenses disclosed below align with the segment-level information that is regularly provided to the CODM.

(a) Elimination of intercompany interest income/interest expense on affiliated debt arrangement.

(b) Includes elimination of AEPTCo Parent’s equity earnings in the State Transcos.

(c) Primarily relates to Notes Receivable from the State Transcos.

(d) Primarily relates to elimination of Notes Receivable from the State Transcos.

9. DERIVATIVES AND HEDGING

The disclosures in this note apply to all Registrants unless indicated otherwise. For the periods presented, AEPTCo did not have any derivative and hedging activity.

OBJECTIVES FOR UTILIZATION OF DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS

AEPSC is agent for and transacts on behalf of certain AEP subsidiaries, including the Registrant Subsidiaries. AEPEP is agent for and transacts on behalf of other AEP subsidiaries.

The Registrants are exposed to certain market risks as major power producers and participants in the electricity, capacity, natural gas, coal and emission allowance markets. These risks include commodity price risks which may be subject to capacity risk, interest rate risk and credit risk. These risks represent the risk of loss that may impact the Registrants due to changes in the underlying market prices or rates. Management utilizes derivative instruments to manage these risks.

STRATEGIES FOR UTILIZATION OF DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES

Risk Management Strategies

The strategy surrounding the use of derivative instruments primarily focuses on managing risk exposures, future cash flows and creating value utilizing both economic and formal hedging strategies. The risk management strategies also include the use of derivative instruments for trading purposes which focus on seizing market opportunities to create value driven by expected changes in the market prices of the commodities. To accomplish these objectives, the Registrants primarily employ risk management contracts including physical and financial forward purchase-and-sale contracts and, to a lesser extent, OTC swaps and options. Not all risk management contracts meet the definition of a derivative under the accounting guidance for “Derivatives and Hedging.” Derivative risk management contracts elected normal under the normal purchases and normal sales scope exception are not subject to the requirements of this accounting guidance.

The Registrants utilize power, capacity, coal, natural gas, interest rate and, to a lesser extent, heating oil, gasoline and other commodity contracts to manage the risk associated with the energy business. The Registrants utilize interest rate derivative contracts in order to manage the interest rate exposure associated with the commodity portfolio. For disclosure purposes, such risks are grouped as “Commodity,” as these risks are related to energy risk management activities. The Registrants also utilize derivative contracts to manage interest rate risk associated with debt financing. For disclosure purposes, these risks are grouped as “Interest Rate.” The amount of risk taken is determined by the Commercial Operations, Energy Supply and Finance groups in accordance with established risk management policies as approved by the Finance Committee of the AEP Board.

The following table represents the gross notional volume of the Registrants’ outstanding derivative contracts:

Fair Value Hedging Strategies (Applies to AEP)

Parent enters into interest rate derivative transactions as part of an overall strategy to manage the mix of fixed-rate and floating-rate debt. Certain interest rate derivative transactions effectively modify exposure to interest rate risk by converting a portion of fixed-rate debt to a floating-rate. Provided specific criteria are met, these interest rate derivatives may be designated as fair value hedges.

Cash Flow Hedging Strategies

The Registrants utilize cash flow hedges on certain derivative transactions for the purchase and sale of power (“Commodity”) in order to manage the variable price risk related to forecasted purchases and sales. Management monitors the potential impacts of commodity price changes and, where appropriate, enters into derivative transactions to protect profit margins for a portion of future electricity sales and purchases. The Registrants do not hedge all commodity price risk.

The Registrants utilize a variety of interest rate derivative transactions in order to manage interest rate risk exposure. The Registrants also utilize interest rate derivative contracts to manage interest rate exposure related to future borrowings of fixed-rate debt. The Registrants do not hedge all interest rate exposure.

ACCOUNTING FOR DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND THE IMPACT ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The accounting guidance for “Derivatives and Hedging” requires recognition of all qualifying derivative instruments as either assets or liabilities on the balance sheets at fair value. The fair values of derivative instruments accounted for using MTM accounting or hedge accounting are based on exchange prices and broker quotes. If a quoted market price is not available, the estimate of fair value is based on the best information available including valuation models that estimate future energy prices based on existing market and broker quotes and other assumptions. In order to determine the relevant fair values of the derivative instruments, the Registrants apply valuation adjustments for discounting, liquidity and credit quality.

Credit risk is the risk that a counterparty will fail to perform on the contract or fail to pay amounts due. Liquidity risk represents the risk that imperfections in the market will cause the price to vary from estimated fair value based upon prevailing market supply and demand conditions. Since energy markets are imperfect and volatile, there are inherent risks related to the underlying assumptions in models used to fair value risk management contracts. Unforeseen events may cause reasonable price curves to differ from actual price curves throughout a contract’s term and at the time a contract settles. Consequently, there could be significant adverse or favorable effects on future net income and cash flows if market prices are not consistent with management’s estimates of current market consensus for forward prices in the current period. This is particularly true for longer term contracts. Cash flows may vary based on market conditions, margin requirements and the timing of settlement of risk management contracts.

According to the accounting guidance for “Derivatives and Hedging,” the Registrants reflect the fair values of derivative instruments subject to netting agreements with the same counterparty net of related cash collateral. For certain risk management contracts, the Registrants are required to post or receive cash collateral based on third-party contractual agreements and risk profiles. AEP netted cash collateral received from third-parties against short-term and long-term risk management assets in the amounts of $119 million and $87 million as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. There was no cash collateral received from third-parties netted against short-term and long-term risk management assets for the Registrant Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024. AEP netted cash collateral paid to third-parties against short-term and long-term risk management liabilities in the amounts of $21 million and $3 million as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. I&M netted cash collateral paid to third-parties against short-term and long-term risk management liabilities in the amounts of $18 million and $600 thousand as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. The amount of cash collateral paid to third-parties netted against short-term and long-term risk management liabilities was not material for the other Registrant Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024.

Location and Fair Value of Derivative Assets and Liabilities Recognized on the Balance Sheet

The following tables represent the gross fair value of the Registrants’ derivative activity on the balance sheets. The derivative instruments are disclosed as gross. They are subject to master netting agreements and are presented on the balance sheets on a net basis in accordance with the accounting guidance for “Derivatives and Hedging.” Unless shown as a separate line on the balance sheets due to materiality, Current Risk Management Assets are included in Prepayments and Other Current Assets, Long-term Risk Management Assets are included in Deferred Charges and Other Noncurrent Assets, Current Risk Management Liabilities are included in Other Current Liabilities and Long-term Risk Management Liabilities are included in Deferred Credits and Other Noncurrent Liabilities on the balance sheets.

Offsetting Assets and Liabilities

The following tables show the net amounts of assets and liabilities presented on the balance sheets. The gross amounts offset include counterparty netting of risk management and hedging contracts and associated cash collateral in accordance with accounting guidance for “Derivatives and Hedging.” All derivative contracts subject to a master netting arrangement or similar agreement are offset on the balance sheets.