Rate Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Rate Matters	RATE MATTERS The disclosures in this note apply to all Registrants unless indicated otherwise. The Registrants are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. Rate matters can have a material impact on net income, cash flows and possibly financial condition. The Registrants’ recent significant rate orders and pending rate filings are addressed in this note. AEP Texas Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and AEP Texas) AEP Texas Interim Transmission and Distribution Rates Through December 31, 2021, AEP Texas’ cumulative revenues from interim base rate increases that are subject to review is approximately $298 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. AEP Texas is required to file for a comprehensive rate review no later than April 5, 2024. APCo and WPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and APCo) 2017-2019 Virginia Triennial Review In November 2020, the Virginia SCC issued an order on APCo’s 2017-2019 Triennial Review filing concluding that APCo earned above its authorized ROE but within its ROE band for the 2017-2019 period, resulting in no refund to customers and no change to APCo base rates on a prospective basis. The Virginia SCC approved a prospective 9.2% ROE for APCo's 2020-2022 triennial review period with the continuation of a 140 basis point band (8.5% bottom, 9.2% midpoint, 9.9% top). In December 2020, an intervenor filed a petition at the Virginia SCC requesting reconsideration of: (a) the failure of the Virginia SCC to apply a threshold earnings test to the approved regulatory asset for APCo’s closed coal-fired generation assets, (b) the Virginia SCC’s use of a 2011 benchmark study to measure the replacement value of capacity for purposes of APCo’s 2017 – 2019 earnings test and (c) the reasonableness and prudency of APCo’s investments in AMI meters. In December 2020, APCo filed a petition at the Virginia SCC requesting reconsideration of: (a) certain issues related to APCo’s going-forward rates and (b) the Virginia SCC’s decision to deny APCo tariff changes that align rates with underlying costs. For APCo’s going-forward rates, APCo requested that the Virginia SCC clarify its final order and clarify whether APCo’s current rates will allow it to earn a fair return. If the Virginia SCC’s order did conclude on APCo’s ability to earn a fair return through existing base rates, APCo further requested that the Virginia SCC clarify whether it has the authority to also permit an increase in base rates. In March 2021, an intervenor filed its assignments of error with the Virginia Supreme Court related to the appeal of the November 2020 order in which it stated the Virginia SCC erred: (a) in determining that Virginia law did not apply to its determination to permit amortization for recovery of costs associated with retired coal-fired generation assets, (b) in establishing a new regulatory asset for a cost incurred outside of the triennial review period due to its failure to apply a threshold earnings test before approving deferred cost recovery and (c) in misapplying the requirement that APCo bear the burden of demonstrating that power purchases made by APCo from its affiliate, OVEC, were priced at the lower of OVEC’s cost or the market price for nonaffiliated power. In March 2021, APCo filed its assignments of error with the Virginia Supreme Court related to its appeal of the November 2020 order in which it stated the Virginia SCC erred: (a) in finding that costs associated with asset impairments related to early retirement determinations made by APCo for certain generation facilities should not be attributed to the test periods under review and deemed fully recovered in the period recorded, (b) in finding that it was permitted to evaluate the reasonableness of APCo’s decision to record, per books for financial reporting purposes, asset impairments related to early retirement determinations for certain generation facilities, (c) as a result of the errors described in (a) and (b), in denying APCo an increase in rates, (d) in failing to review and make any findings regarding whether APCo’s rates would allow it to earn a fair rate of return going forward, (e) in denying APCo an increase in base rates by failing to ensure that APCo has an opportunity to recover its costs and earn a fair rate of return, thereby resulting in a taking of private property for public use without just compensation and (f) in retroactively adjusting APCo’s depreciation expense for purposes of calculating APCo’s earnings for the 2017-2019 triennial period. In March 2021, the Virginia SCC issued an order confirming certain of its decisions from the November 2020 order and rejecting the various requests for reconsideration from APCo and an intervenor. In confirming its decision to reject an intervenor’s recommendation that APCo’s AMI costs incurred during the triennial period be disallowed, the Virginia SCC clarified that APCo established the need to replace its existing AMR meters, and that based on the uncertainty surrounding the continued manufacturing and support of AMR technology, APCo reasonably chose to replace them with AMI meters. In March 2021, APCo filed a notice of appeal of the reconsideration order with the Virginia Supreme Court. In September 2021, APCo submitted its brief before the Virginia Supreme Court. The brief was in alignment with the assignments of error filed by APCo in March 2021. In October 2021, the Virginia SCC and additional intervenors filed briefs with the Virginia Supreme Court disagreeing with APCo’s assignments of error in its appeal of the Triennial Review decision. Additionally, the Virginia SCC and APCo filed briefs disagreeing with an intervenor’s assignments of error in a separate appeal of the same decision. Oral arguments are scheduled to be held at the Virginia Supreme Court in March 2022. APCo ultimately seeks an increase in base rates through its appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court. Among other issues, this appeal includes APCo’s request for proper treatment of the closed coal-fired plant assets in APCo’s 2017-2019 triennial period, reducing APCo’s earnings below the bottom of its authorized ROE band. If APCo’s appeals regarding treatment of the closed coal plants are granted by the Virginia Supreme Court, it could initially reduce future net income and impact financial condition. A Virginia Supreme Court decision in favor of APCo’s original expensing of the closed coal-fired plant asset balances would likely result in a remand to the Virginia SCC. Upon a subsequent Virginia SCC order, the initial negative impact for the write-off of the closed coal-fired plant asset balances could potentially be offset by an increase in base rates for earning below APCo’s 2017-2019 authorized ROE band. CCR/ELG Compliance Plan Filings In December 2020, APCo submitted filings with the Virginia SCC and WVPSC requesting approvals necessary to implement CCR/ELG compliance plans at the Amos and Mountaineer Plants. Intervenors in Virginia and West Virginia recommended that only the CCR-related investments be constructed at Amos and Mountaineer and, as a consequence, that APCo close these generating facilities at the end of 2028. In August 2021, the Virginia SCC issued an order approving APCo’s request to construct CCR-related investments at the Amos and Mountaineer Plants and approved recovery of CCR-related other operation and maintenance expenses and investments through an active rider. The order denied APCo’s request to construct the ELG investments and denied recovery of previously incurred ELG costs. APCo plans to refile for approval of the ELG investments and previously incurred ELG costs in the first quarter of 2022. Also in August 2021, the WVPSC approved the request to construct CCR/ELG investments at the Amos and Mountaineer Plants and approved recovery of the West Virginia jurisdictional share of these costs through an active rider. In October 2021, due to the Virginia SCC previously rejecting the ELG investments, the WVPSC issued an order directing APCo to proceed with CCR/ELG compliance plans that would allow the plants to continue operating beyond 2028. The October order further states that APCo will not share capacity and energy from the plants with customers from Virginia if those customers are not paying for ELG compliance costs, or for any new capital investment or continuing operations costs incurred, to allow the plants to operate beyond 2028 or prevent downgrades prior to 2028. The WVPSC also ordered that APCo will be given the opportunity to recover, from West Virginia customers, the new capital and operating costs arising solely from the WVPSC's directive to operate the plants beyond 2028 if the WVPSC finds that the costs are reasonably and prudently incurred. In October and November 2021, intervenors filed petitions for reconsideration at the WVPSC requesting clarification on certain aspects of the order, primarily the jurisdictional allocation of future operating expenses and plant costs. APCo expects total Amos and Mountaineer Plant ELG investment, excluding AFUDC, to be approximately $197 million. As of December 31, 2021, APCo’s Virginia jurisdictional share of the net book value, before cost of removal including CWIP and inventory, of the Amos and Mountaineer Plants was approximately $1.5 billion and APCo’s Virginia jurisdictional share of its ELG investment balance in CWIP for these plants was $26 million. If any of the ELG costs are not approved for recovery and/or the retirement dates of the Amos and Mountaineer plants are accelerated to 2028 without commensurate cost recovery, it would reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. 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 December 31, 2021, AEP’s share of ETT’s cumulative revenues that are subject to review is approximately $1.4 billion. A base rate review could produce a refund if ETT incurs a disallowance of the transmission investment on which an interim increase was based. A revenue decrease, including a refund of interim transmission rates, could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that are reasonably possible of occurring. ETT is required to file for a comprehensive rate review no later than February 1, 2023, during which the $1.4 billion of cumulative revenues above will be subject to review. I&M Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and I&M) 2021 Indiana Base Rate Case In July 2021, I&M filed a request with the IURC for a $104 million annual increase in Indiana rates, inclusive of base rates and riders, based upon a proposed 10% ROE. I&M proposed a phased-in annual increase in rates of $73 million effective in May 2022 with the remaining $31 million annual increase in rates to be effective January 2023. The proposed annual increase includes $7 million related to an annual increase in depreciation expense, driven by increased depreciation rates and proposed investments. The request also includes a new AMI rider for proposed meter projects. In November 2021, I&M and intervenors filed an unopposed joint settlement agreement with the IURC. After adjustments to remove the impact of Rockport Plant, Unit 2, the agreement includes a $61 million annual revenue increase based on a 9.7% ROE. The primary differences between I&M’s requested annual rate increase and the agreed upon settlement increase are primarily due to: (a) changes to the capital structure of I&M, (b) decreased depreciation rates and (c) certain changes to I&M’s proposed rate base. Rockport Plant, Unit 2 costs will be recovered through riders until the lease expiration in December 2022. Adjustments to remove Rockport Plant, Unit 2 costs from base rates are consistent with the IURC’s order approving I&M’s proposed purchase of Rockport Plant, Unit 2. See “Rockport Plant Litigation” section of Note 6 for additional information. In February 2022, the IURC issued an order approving the joint settlement agreement with no modifications. The IURC’s order resulted in a phased-in increase in Indiana rates with a $3 million annual increase effective February 2022 and the remaining $58 million annual increase effective in January 2023. KPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP) CCR/ELG Compliance Plan Filings KPCo and WPCo each own a 50% interest in the Mitchell Plant. In December 2020 and February 2021, WPCo and KPCo filed requests with the WVPSC and KPSC, respectively, to obtain the regulatory approvals necessary to implement CCR and ELG compliance plans and seek recovery of the estimated $132 million investment for the Mitchell Plant that would allow the plant to continue operating beyond 2028. Within those requests, WPCo and KPCo also filed a $25 million alternative to implement only the CCR-related investments with the WVPSC and KPSC, respectively, which would allow the Mitchell Plant to continue operating only through 2028. In July 2021, the KPSC issued an order approving the CCR only alternative and rejecting the full CCR and ELG compliance plan. In August 2021, the WVPSC approved the full CCR and ELG compliance plan for the WPCo share of the Mitchell Plant. In September 2021, WPCo submitted a filing with the WVPSC to reopen the CCR/ELG case that was approved by the WVPSC in August 2021. Due to the rejection by the KPSC of the KPCo share of the ELG investments, WPCo requested the WVPSC consider approving the construction and recovery of all ELG costs at the plant. In October 2021, the WVPSC affirmed its August 2021 order approving the construction of CCR/ELG investments and directed WPCo to proceed with CCR/ELG compliance plans that would allow the plant to continue operating beyond 2028. The WVPSC’s order further states WPCo will not share capacity and energy from the plant with KPCo customers if those customers are not paying for ELG compliance costs, or for any new capital investment or continuing operations costs incurred, to allow the plant to operate beyond 2028 or prevent downgrades prior to 2028. The WVPSC also ordered that WPCo will be given the opportunity to recover, from its customers, the new capital and operating costs arising solely from the WVPSC's directive to operate the plant beyond 2028 if the WVPSC finds that the costs are reasonably and prudently incurred. In October and November 2021, intervenors filed petitions for reconsideration at the WVPSC requesting clarification on certain aspects of the order, primarily the jurisdictional allocation of future operating expenses and plant costs. In November 2021, AEP made filings with the KPSC, WVPSC and FERC seeking approval for a new proposed Mitchell Plant Operations and Maintenance Agreement and Mitchell Plant Ownership Agreement between KPCo and WPCo pursuant to which WPCo would replace KPCo as the operator of the Mitchell Plant. In February 2022, AEP filed a motion to withdraw its filing with the FERC, noting that AEP intends to re-file its request after the KPSC and WVPSC reviews have been completed. See “Disposition of KPCo and KTCo” section of Note 7 for additional information. As of December 31, 2021, KPCo’s share of the Mitchell Plant’s ELG investment balance in CWIP was $3 million. As of December 31, 2021, the net book value of KPCo’s share of the Mitchell Plant, before cost of removal including CWIP and inventory, was $586 million. If any of the ELG costs are not approved for recovery and/or the retirement date of the Mitchell Plant is accelerated to 2028 without commensurate cost recovery, it would reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. OPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and OPCo) 2020 Ohio Base Rate Case In June 2020, OPCo filed a request with the PUCO for a $42 million annual increase in base rates based upon a proposed 10.15% ROE net of existing riders. In March 2021, OPCo, the PUCO staff and various intervenors filed a joint stipulation and settlement agreement with the PUCO. The agreement includes a $68 million annual decrease in base rates based on an ROE of 9.7%. The difference between OPCo’s requested annual base rate increase and the agreed upon decrease is primarily due to a reduction in the requested ROE, the removal of proposed future energy efficiency costs and a decrease in vegetation management expenses moved to recovery in riders. Additionally, the agreement includes: (a) an increased fixed monthly residential customer charge, (b) the discontinuation of rate decoupling and (c) the continuation of the DIR with annual revenue caps of $57 million in 2021, $91 million in 2022, $116 million in 2023 and $51 million for the first five months of 2024. Annual revenue caps for the DIR can be increased if OPCo achieves certain reliability standards. In November 2021, the PUCO approved the joint stipulation and settlement agreement and rates went into effect in December 2021. 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. Management disagrees with these claims and is unable to predict the impact, if any, these disputes may have on future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. See "OVEC" section of Note 17 for additional information on AEP and OPCo’s investment in OVEC. PSO Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and PSO) 2021 Oklahoma Base Rate Case In April 2021, PSO filed a request with the OCC for a $172 million net annual increase in Oklahoma base rates based upon a 10% ROE. The proposed net annual increase includes: (a) a $57 million annual depreciation expense increase, of which $45 million is related to the accelerated depreciation recovery of the Oklaunion Power Station and Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 through 2026 and (b) $31 million related to increased SPP expenses. PSO also requested the continuation of its SPP Transmission Tariff that tracks transmission costs as well as continuation and expansion of its Distribution and Safety Reliability Rider to recover projects in its proposed grid transformation and revitalization plan, which includes $100 million annual capital spend over a 5 year period. In August 2021, PSO updated its request for a net annual revenue increase to appropriately reflect certain cost reductions and annualized rider revenues transitioning into base rates. PSO’s updated request filed with the OCC is for a $128 million net annual increase in Oklahoma base rates based upon a 10% ROE. In September 2021, PSO, OCC staff and certain intervenors filed a contested joint stipulation and settlement agreement with the OCC that included a net annual revenue increase of $51 million based upon a 9.4% ROE. The agreement also included: (a) recovery of, with a debt return on, the Oklaunion Power Station regulatory asset through 2046 and continued recovery of Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 through 2040, (b) updated depreciation rates for plant in service, excluding coal production plant, (c) approval to defer a weighted average cost of capital carrying charge on PSO’s deferred tax asset associated with net operating loss on a stand-alone tax basis beginning in November 2021 and, contingent upon receipt of a supportive private letter ruling from the IRS, approval to collect the deferral through a rider over a 20-month period, (d) modification of the SPP transmission tariff to reduce the scope of tracked transmission expense and (e) modification of the Distribution Reliability and Safety Rider to limit recovery to previously approved projects not in service as of June 2021. PSO implemented an interim annual base rate increase of $51 million starting with the November 2021 billing cycle. In December 2021, the OCC approved the joint stipulation and settlement agreement without modifications. Effective February 2022, interim rates were terminated and updated rates and tariffs went into effect in accordance with the final order. February 2021 Severe Winter Weather Impacts in SPP In February 2021, severe winter weather had a significant impact in SPP, resulting in the declaration of Energy Emergency Alert Levels 2 and 3 for the first time in SPP’s history. The winter storm increased the demand for natural gas and restricted the available natural gas supply 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, PSO’s natural gas expenses and purchases of electricity still to be recovered from customers are $679 million as of December 31, 2021. In April 2021, the OCC approved a waiver for PSO allowing the deferral of the extraordinary fuel and purchases of electricity, including a carrying charge at an interim rate of 0.75%, over a longer time period than what the FAC traditionally allows. In January 2022, PSO, OCC staff and certain intervenors filed a joint stipulation and settlement agreement with the OCC to approve PSO’s securitization of the extraordinary fuel and purchases of electricity. The agreement includes a determination that all of PSO’s extraordinary fuel and purchases of electricity were prudent and reasonable and a 0.75% carrying charge, subject to true-up based on actual financing costs. In February 2022, the OCC approved the joint stipulation and settlement agreement in its financing order. SWEPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and SWEPCo) 2012 Texas Base Rate Case In 2012, SWEPCo filed a request with the PUCT to increase annual base rates primarily due to the completion of the Turk Plant. In 2013, the PUCT issued an order affirming the prudence of the Turk Plant but determined that the Turk Plant’s Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap established in a previous Certificate of Convenience and Necessity case also limited SWEPCo’s recovery of AFUDC in addition to limits on its recovery of cash construction costs. Upon rehearing in 2014, the PUCT reversed its initial ruling and determined that AFUDC was excluded from the Turk Plant’s Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap. As a result, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of a previously recorded regulatory disallowance in 2013. In 2017, the Texas District Court upheld the PUCT’s 2014 order and intervenors filed appeals with the Texas Third Court of Appeals. In July 2018, the Texas Third Court of Appeals reversed the PUCT’s judgment affirming the prudence of the Turk Plant and remanded the issue back to the PUCT. In January 2019, SWEPCo and the PUCT filed petitions for review with the Texas Supreme Court. In March 2021, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the July 2018 judgment of the Texas Third Court of Appeals and agreeing with the PUCT’s judgment affirming the prudence of the Turk Plant. In addition, the Texas Supreme Court remanded the AFUDC dispute back to the Texas Third Court of Appeals. No parties filed a motion for rehearing with the Texas Supreme Court. In August 2021, the Texas Third Court of Appeals reversed the Texas District Court judgement affirming the PUCT’s order on AFUDC, concluding that the language of the PUCT’s original 2008 order intended to include AFUDC in the Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap, and remanded the case to the PUCT for future proceedings. SWEPCo disagrees with the Court of Appeals decision and submitted a Petition for Review with the Texas Supreme Court in November 2021. The Texas Supreme Court requested responses to the Petition for Review, which are due by the end of March 2022. If SWEPCo is ultimately unable to recover capitalized Turk Plant costs, including AFUDC in excess of the Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap, it would be expected to result in a pretax net disallowance ranging from $80 million to $100 million. In addition, if AFUDC is ultimately determined to be included in the Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap, SWEPCo estimates it may be required to make customer refunds ranging from $0 to $160 million related to revenues collected from February 2013 through December 2021 and such determination may reduce SWEPCo’s future revenues by approximately $15 million on an annual basis. 2016 Texas Base Rate Case In 2016, SWEPCo filed a request with the PUCT for a net increase in Texas annual revenues of $69 million based upon a 10% ROE. In January 2018, the PUCT issued a final order approving a net increase in Texas annual revenues of $50 million based upon a ROE of 9.6%, effective May 2017. The final order also included: (a) approval to recover the Texas jurisdictional share of environmental investments placed in- service, as of June 30, 2016, at various plants, including Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3, (b) approval of recovery of, but no return on, the Texas jurisdictional share of the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2, (c) approval of $2 million in additional vegetation management expenses and (d) the rejection of SWEPCo’s proposed transmission cost recovery mechanism. As a result of the final order, in 2017 SWEPCo: (a) recorded an impairment charge of $19 million, which included $7 million associated with the lack of return on Welsh Plant, Unit 2 and $12 million related to other disallowed plant investments, (b) recognized $32 million of additional revenues, for the period of May 2017 through December 2017, that was surcharged to customers in 2018 and (c) recognized an additional $7 million of expenses consisting primarily of depreciation expense and vegetation management expense, offset by the deferral of rate case expense. SWEPCo implemented new rates in February 2018 billings. The $32 million of additional 2017 revenues was collected during 2018. In March 2018, the PUCT clarified and corrected portions of the final order, without changing the overall decision or amounts of the rate change. The order has been appealed by various intervenors. The appeal will move forward following the conclusion of the 2012 Texas Base Rate Case. If certain parts of the PUCT order are overturned, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. 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. The proposed net annual increase: (a) includes $5 million related to vegetation management to maintain and improve the reliability of SWEPCo’s Texas jurisdictional distribution system, (b) requests a $10 million annual depreciation increase and (c) seeks $2 million annually to establish a storm catastrophe reserve. In addition, SWEPCo also requested recovery of the Texas jurisdictional share of the Dolet Hills Power Station of $45 million which was retired in December 2021. 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 (d) the creation of a rider that would 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 would be recovered as a regulatory asset through 2046. As a result of the final order, SWEPCo recorded a disallowance of $12 million 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. 2020 Louisiana Base Rate Case In December 2020, SWEPCo filed a request with the LPSC for a $134 million annual increase in Louisiana base rates based upon a proposed 10.35% ROE. SWEPCo subsequently revised the requested annual increase to $114 million to reflect removing hurricane storm restoration costs from the base case filing. The hurricane costs have been requested in a separate storm filing. See “2021 Louisiana Storm Cost Filing” below for more information. The base case filing would extend the formula rate plan for five years and includes modifications to the formula rate plan to allow for forward-looking transmission costs, reflects the impact of net operating losses associated with the acceleration of certain tax benefits and incorporates future federal corporate income tax changes. The proposed net annual increase requests a $32 million annual depreciation increase to recover Louisiana’s share of the Dolet Hills Power Station, Pirkey Power Plant and Welsh Plant, all of which are expected to be retired early. In July 2021, the LPSC staff filed testimony supporting a $6 million annual increase in base rates based upon a ROE of 9.1% while other intervenors recommended a ROE ranging from 9.35% to 9.8%. The primary differences between SWEPCo’s requested annual increase in base rates and the LPSC staff’s recommendation include: (a) a reduction in depreciation expense, (b) recovery of Dolet Hills Power Station and Pirkey Power Plant in a separate rider mechanism, (c) the rejection of SWEPCo’s proposed adjustment to include a stand-alone net operating loss carryforward deferred tax asset in rate base and (d) a reduction in the proposed ROE. In September 2021, SWEPCo filed rebuttal testimony supporting a revised requested annual increase in base rates of $95 million. The primary differences in the rebuttal testimony from the previous revised request of $114 million are modifications to the proposed recovery of the Dolet Hills Power Station and revisions to various proposed amortizations. LPSC staff and intervenor responses to SWEPCo’s rebuttal testimony were filed in October 2021. The procedural schedule for the case is on hold due to ongoing settlement discussions. If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. 2021 Arkansas Base Rate Case In July 2021, SWEPCo filed a request with the APSC for an $85 million annual increase in Arkansas base rates based upon a proposed 10.35% ROE with a capital structure of 48.7% debt and 51.3% common equity. The proposed annual increase includes: (a) a $41 million revenue requirement for the North Central Wind Facilities, (b) a $14 million annual depreciation increase primarily due to recovery of the Dolet Hills Power Station through 2026 and Pirkey Plant and Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 through 2037 and (c) a $6 million increase due to SPP costs. SWEPCo requested that rates become effective in June 2022. APSC staff filed testimony supporting a $47 million annual increase in base rates based upon a ROE of 9.3% while other intervenors recommended a ROE ranging from 8.75% to 9.25%. The primary differences between SWEPCo’s requested annual increase in base rates and the APSC staff’s recommendation include: (a) recovery of the Dolet Hills Power Station through 2046 with no debt or equity return, (b) a reduction in the proposed ROE with a capital structure of 55.5% debt and 44.5% common equity and (c) lower depreciation rates. The APSC staff also recommended future generating facility retirements be treated similar to the Dolet Hills Power Station recommendation of recovery with no debt or equity return. Also, an intervenor recommended no debt or equity return on the Pirkey Power Plant after its retirement, which is currently expected to be in 2023. SWEPCo filed rebuttal testimony in January 2022 revising the requested annual increase in Arkansas base rates to $81 million with rates to be effective in June 2022. A hearing will be held at the APSC in March 2022. If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. 2021 Louisiana Storm Cost Filing In 2020, Hurricanes Laura and Delta caused power outages and extensive damage to the SWEPCo service territories, primarily impacting the Louisiana jurisdiction. Following both hurricanes, the LPSC issued orders allowing Louisiana utilities, including SWEPCo, to establish regulatory assets to track and defer expenses associated with these storms. In February 2021, severe winter weather impacted the Louisiana jurisdiction and in March 2021, the LPSC approved the deferral of incremental storm restoration expenses related to the winter storm. In October 2021, SWEPCo filed a request with the LPSC for recovery of $145 million in deferred storm costs associated with the three storms. As part of the filing, SWEPCo requested recovery of the carrying charges on the deferred regulatory asset at a weighted average cost of capital through a rider beginning in January 2022. LPSC staff testimony is due to the LPSC in May 2022 and an order is expected before the end of 2022. If any of the storm costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. February 2021 Severe Winter Weather Impacts in SPP As discussed in the “PSO Rate Matters” section above, 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 $430 million as of December 31, 2021, of which $103 million, $148 million and $179 million is related to the Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas jurisdictions, respectively. In March 2021, the APSC issued an order authorizing recovery of the Arkansas jurisdictional share of the retail customer fuel costs over five years, with the appropriate carrying charge to be determined at a later date. Subsequently, SWEPCo began recovery of these fuel costs. SWEPCo is currently recovering the fuel costs at an interim carrying charge of 0.3%. In April 2021, SWEPCo filed testimony supporting a five-year recovery with a carrying charge of 6.05%, which has been supported by APSC staff. Various other parties have recommended recovery periods ranging from 5-20 years with a carrying charge of 1.65%. The APSC ordered more testimony regarding the option of utilizing securitization to recover the fuel costs. SWEPCo is awaiting a decision from the APSC. The prudence of these fuel costs is expected to be addressed in a separate proceeding. 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 a five-year recovery period inclusive of an interim carrying charge of 3.25%. SWEPCo will work with the LPSC to finalize the actual recovery period and determine the appropriate carrying charge in future proceedings. In August 2021, SWEPCo filed an application with the PUCT to implement a net interim fuel surcharge for the Texas jurisdictional share of these retail fuel costs. The application requested a five-year recovery with a carrying charge of 7.18%. In October 2021, various intervenors filed testimony supporting a five-year recovery with a carrying charge ranging from 0.82% to 1.625%. In January 2022, an ALJ issued a PFD recommending a four-year recovery with a carrying charge the same as the annually set interest rate used for under-recovered fuel. In February 2022, SWEPCo filed exceptions to the PFD, disagreeing with the short-term interest rate recommended by the ALJ. SWEPCo is awaiting an order from the PUCT. 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. FERC Rate Matters FERC SPP Transmission Formula Rate Challenge (Applies to AEP, AEPTCo, PSO and SWEPCo) In May 2021, certain joint customers submitted a formal challenge at the FERC related to the 2020 Annual Update of the 2019 SPP Transmission Formula Rates of the AEP transmission owning subsidiaries within SPP. Management has reviewed the formal challenge and responses were filed with the FERC in 2021. If the FERC orders revenue refunds or reductions, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. 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 owns 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 (PA PUC) denied the IEC certificate for siting and construction of the portion in Pennsylvania. Transource Energy has appealed the PA PUC ruling in Pennsylvania state court and challenged the ruling before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The case before the state court is pending and the case before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania is currently suspended, pending the outcome of the case in the Pennsylvania state court. 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. PJM stated that the IEC has not been cancelled and remains necessary to alleviate congestion. As of December 31, 2021, AEP’s share of IEC capital expenditures was approximately $81 million. The FERC has previously granted abandonment benefits for this project, allowing the full recovery of prudently incurred costs if the project is cancelled 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.

The Registrants are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. Rate matters can have a material impact on net income, cash flows and possibly financial condition. The Registrants’ recent significant rate orders and pending rate filings are addressed in this note.

Through December 31, 2021, AEP Texas’ cumulative revenues from interim base rate increases that are subject to review is approximately $298 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. AEP Texas is required to file for a comprehensive rate review no later than April 5, 2024.

In November 2020, the Virginia SCC issued an order on APCo’s 2017-2019 Triennial Review filing concluding that APCo earned above its authorized ROE but within its ROE band for the 2017-2019 period, resulting in no refund to customers and no change to APCo base rates on a prospective basis. The Virginia SCC approved a prospective 9.2% ROE for APCo's 2020-2022 triennial review period with the continuation of a 140 basis point band (8.5% bottom, 9.2% midpoint, 9.9% top).

In December 2020, an intervenor filed a petition at the Virginia SCC requesting reconsideration of: (a) the failure of the Virginia SCC to apply a threshold earnings test to the approved regulatory asset for APCo’s closed coal-fired generation assets, (b) the Virginia SCC’s use of a 2011 benchmark study to measure the replacement value of capacity for purposes of APCo’s 2017 – 2019 earnings test and (c) the reasonableness and prudency of APCo’s investments in AMI meters.

In December 2020, APCo filed a petition at the Virginia SCC requesting reconsideration of: (a) certain issues related to APCo’s going-forward rates and (b) the Virginia SCC’s decision to deny APCo tariff changes that align rates with underlying costs. For APCo’s going-forward rates, APCo requested that the Virginia SCC clarify its final order and clarify whether APCo’s current rates will allow it to earn a fair return. If the Virginia SCC’s order did conclude on APCo’s ability to earn a fair return through existing base rates, APCo further requested that the Virginia SCC clarify whether it has the authority to also permit an increase in base rates.

In March 2021, an intervenor filed its assignments of error with the Virginia Supreme Court related to the appeal of the November 2020 order in which it stated the Virginia SCC erred: (a) in determining that Virginia law did not apply to its determination to permit amortization for recovery of costs associated with retired coal-fired generation assets, (b) in establishing a new regulatory asset for a cost incurred outside of the triennial review period due to its failure to apply a threshold earnings test before approving deferred cost recovery and (c) in misapplying the requirement that APCo bear the burden of demonstrating that power purchases made by APCo from its affiliate, OVEC, were priced at the lower of OVEC’s cost or the market price for nonaffiliated power.

In March 2021, APCo filed its assignments of error with the Virginia Supreme Court related to its appeal of the November 2020 order in which it stated the Virginia SCC erred: (a) in finding that costs associated with asset impairments related to early retirement determinations made by APCo for certain generation facilities should not be attributed to the test periods under review and deemed fully recovered in the period recorded, (b) in finding that it was permitted to evaluate the reasonableness of APCo’s decision to record, per books for financial reporting purposes, asset impairments related to early retirement determinations for certain generation facilities, (c) as a result of the errors described in (a) and (b), in denying APCo an increase in rates, (d) in failing to review and make any findings regarding whether APCo’s rates would allow it to earn a fair rate of return going forward, (e) in denying APCo an increase in base rates by failing to ensure that APCo has an opportunity to recover its costs and earn a fair rate of return, thereby resulting in a taking of private property for public use without just compensation and (f) in retroactively adjusting APCo’s depreciation expense for purposes of calculating APCo’s earnings for the 2017-2019 triennial period.

In March 2021, the Virginia SCC issued an order confirming certain of its decisions from the November 2020 order and rejecting the various requests for reconsideration from APCo and an intervenor. In confirming its decision to reject an intervenor’s recommendation that APCo’s AMI costs incurred during the triennial period be disallowed, the Virginia SCC clarified that APCo established the need to replace its existing AMR meters, and that based on the uncertainty surrounding the continued manufacturing and support of AMR technology, APCo reasonably chose to replace them with AMI meters. In March 2021, APCo filed a notice of appeal of the reconsideration order with the Virginia Supreme Court. In September 2021, APCo submitted its brief before the Virginia Supreme Court. The brief was in alignment with the assignments of error filed by APCo in March 2021. In October 2021, the Virginia SCC and additional intervenors filed briefs with the Virginia Supreme Court disagreeing with APCo’s assignments of error in its appeal of the Triennial Review decision. Additionally, the Virginia SCC and APCo filed briefs disagreeing with an intervenor’s assignments of error in a separate appeal of the same decision. Oral arguments are scheduled to be held at the Virginia Supreme Court in March 2022.

APCo ultimately seeks an increase in base rates through its appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court. Among other issues, this appeal includes APCo’s request for proper treatment of the closed coal-fired plant assets in APCo’s 2017-2019 triennial period, reducing APCo’s earnings below the bottom of its authorized ROE band. If APCo’s appeals regarding treatment of the closed coal plants are granted by the Virginia Supreme Court, it could initially reduce future net income and impact financial condition. A Virginia Supreme Court decision in favor of APCo’s original expensing of the closed coal-fired plant asset balances would likely result in a remand to the Virginia SCC. Upon a subsequent Virginia SCC order, the initial negative impact for the write-off of the closed coal-fired plant asset balances could potentially be offset by an increase in base rates for earning below APCo’s 2017-2019 authorized ROE band.

In December 2020, APCo submitted filings with the Virginia SCC and WVPSC requesting approvals necessary to implement CCR/ELG compliance plans at the Amos and Mountaineer Plants. Intervenors in Virginia and West Virginia recommended that only the CCR-related investments be constructed at Amos and Mountaineer and, as a consequence, that APCo close these generating facilities at the end of 2028.

In August 2021, the Virginia SCC issued an order approving APCo’s request to construct CCR-related investments at the Amos and Mountaineer Plants and approved recovery of CCR-related other operation and maintenance expenses and investments through an active rider. The order denied APCo’s request to construct the ELG investments and denied recovery of previously incurred ELG costs. APCo plans to refile for approval of the ELG investments and previously incurred ELG costs in the first quarter of 2022.

Also in August 2021, the WVPSC approved the request to construct CCR/ELG investments at the Amos and Mountaineer Plants and approved recovery of the West Virginia jurisdictional share of these costs through an active rider. In October 2021, due to the Virginia SCC previously rejecting the ELG investments, the WVPSC issued an order directing APCo to proceed with CCR/ELG compliance plans that would allow the plants to continue operating beyond 2028. The October order further states that APCo will not share capacity and energy from the plants with

customers from Virginia if those customers are not paying for ELG compliance costs, or for any new capital investment or continuing operations costs incurred, to allow the plants to operate beyond 2028 or prevent downgrades prior to 2028. The WVPSC also ordered that APCo will be given the opportunity to recover, from West Virginia customers, the new capital and operating costs arising solely from the WVPSC's directive to operate the plants beyond 2028 if the WVPSC finds that the costs are reasonably and prudently incurred. In October and November 2021, intervenors filed petitions for reconsideration at the WVPSC requesting clarification on certain aspects of the order, primarily the jurisdictional allocation of future operating expenses and plant costs.

APCo expects total Amos and Mountaineer Plant ELG investment, excluding AFUDC, to be approximately $197 million. As of December 31, 2021, APCo’s Virginia jurisdictional share of the net book value, before cost of removal including CWIP and inventory, of the Amos and Mountaineer Plants was approximately $1.5 billion and APCo’s Virginia jurisdictional share of its ELG investment balance in CWIP for these plants was $26 million.

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 December 31, 2021, AEP’s share of ETT’s cumulative revenues that are subject to review is approximately $1.4 billion. A base rate review could produce a refund if ETT incurs a disallowance of the transmission investment on which an interim increase was based. A revenue decrease, including a refund of interim transmission rates, could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that are reasonably possible of occurring. ETT is required to file for a comprehensive rate review no later than February 1, 2023, during which the $1.4 billion of cumulative revenues above will be subject to review.

In July 2021, I&M filed a request with the IURC for a $104 million annual increase in Indiana rates, inclusive of base rates and riders, based upon a proposed 10% ROE. I&M proposed a phased-in annual increase in rates of $73 million effective in May 2022 with the remaining $31 million annual increase in rates to be effective January 2023. The proposed annual increase includes $7 million related to an annual increase in depreciation expense, driven by increased depreciation rates and proposed investments. The request also includes a new AMI rider for proposed meter projects.

In November 2021, I&M and intervenors filed an unopposed joint settlement agreement with the IURC. After adjustments to remove the impact of Rockport Plant, Unit 2, the agreement includes a $61 million annual revenue increase based on a 9.7% ROE. The primary differences between I&M’s requested annual rate increase and the agreed upon settlement increase are primarily due to: (a) changes to the capital structure of I&M, (b) decreased depreciation rates and (c) certain changes to I&M’s proposed rate base. Rockport Plant, Unit 2 costs will be recovered through riders until the lease expiration in December 2022. Adjustments to remove Rockport Plant, Unit 2 costs from base rates are consistent with the IURC’s order approving I&M’s proposed purchase of Rockport Plant, Unit 2. See “Rockport Plant Litigation” section of Note 6 for additional information. In February 2022, the IURC issued an order approving the joint settlement agreement with no modifications. The IURC’s order resulted in a phased-in increase in Indiana rates with a $3 million annual increase effective February 2022 and the remaining $58 million annual increase effective in January 2023.

KPCo and WPCo each own a 50% interest in the Mitchell Plant. In December 2020 and February 2021, WPCo and KPCo filed requests with the WVPSC and KPSC, respectively, to obtain the regulatory approvals necessary to implement CCR and ELG compliance plans and seek recovery of the estimated $132 million investment for the Mitchell Plant that would allow the plant to continue operating beyond 2028. Within those requests, WPCo and KPCo also filed a $25 million alternative to implement only the CCR-related investments with the WVPSC and KPSC, respectively, which would allow the Mitchell Plant to continue operating only through 2028.

In July 2021, the KPSC issued an order approving the CCR only alternative and rejecting the full CCR and ELG compliance plan. In August 2021, the WVPSC approved the full CCR and ELG compliance plan for the WPCo share of the Mitchell Plant. In September 2021, WPCo submitted a filing with the WVPSC to reopen the CCR/ELG case that was approved by the WVPSC in August 2021. Due to the rejection by the KPSC of the KPCo share of the ELG investments, WPCo requested the WVPSC consider approving the construction and recovery of all ELG costs at the plant. In October 2021, the WVPSC affirmed its August 2021 order approving the construction of CCR/ELG investments and directed WPCo to proceed with CCR/ELG compliance plans that would allow the plant to continue operating beyond 2028. The WVPSC’s order further states WPCo will not share capacity and energy from the plant with KPCo customers if those customers are not paying for ELG compliance costs, or for any new capital investment or continuing operations costs incurred, to allow the plant to operate beyond 2028 or prevent downgrades prior to 2028. The WVPSC also ordered that WPCo will be given the opportunity to recover, from its customers, the new capital and operating costs arising solely from the WVPSC's directive to operate the plant beyond 2028 if the WVPSC finds that the costs are reasonably and prudently incurred. In October and November 2021, intervenors filed petitions for reconsideration at the WVPSC requesting clarification on certain aspects of the

In November 2021, AEP made filings with the KPSC, WVPSC and FERC seeking approval for a new proposed Mitchell Plant Operations and Maintenance Agreement and Mitchell Plant Ownership Agreement between KPCo and WPCo pursuant to which WPCo would replace KPCo as the operator of the Mitchell Plant. In February 2022, AEP filed a motion to withdraw its filing with the FERC, noting that AEP intends to re-file its request after the KPSC and WVPSC reviews have been completed. See “Disposition of KPCo and KTCo” section of Note 7 for additional information.

In March 2021, OPCo, the PUCO staff and various intervenors filed a joint stipulation and settlement agreement with the PUCO. The agreement includes a $68 million annual decrease in base rates based on an ROE of 9.7%. The difference between OPCo’s requested annual base rate increase and the agreed upon decrease is primarily due to a reduction in the requested ROE, the removal of proposed future energy efficiency costs and a decrease in vegetation management expenses moved to recovery in riders. Additionally, the agreement includes: (a) an

increased fixed monthly residential customer charge, (b) the discontinuation of rate decoupling and (c) the continuation of the DIR with annual revenue caps of $57 million in 2021, $91 million in 2022, $116 million in 2023 and $51 million for the first five months of 2024. Annual revenue caps for the DIR can be increased if OPCo achieves certain reliability standards. In November 2021, the PUCO approved the joint stipulation and settlement agreement and rates went into effect in December 2021.

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. Management disagrees with these claims and is unable to predict the impact, if any, these disputes may have on future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. See "OVEC" section of Note 17 for additional information on AEP and OPCo’s investment in OVEC.

In April 2021, PSO filed a request with the OCC for a $172 million net annual increase in Oklahoma base rates based upon a 10% ROE. The proposed net annual increase includes: (a) a $57 million annual depreciation expense increase, of which $45 million is related to the accelerated depreciation recovery of the Oklaunion Power Station and Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 through 2026 and (b) $31 million related to increased SPP expenses. PSO also requested the continuation of its SPP Transmission Tariff that tracks transmission costs as well as continuation and expansion of its Distribution and Safety Reliability Rider to recover projects in its proposed grid transformation and revitalization plan, which includes $100 million annual capital spend over a 5 year period. In August 2021, PSO updated its request for a net annual revenue increase to appropriately reflect certain cost reductions and annualized rider revenues transitioning into base rates. PSO’s updated request filed with the OCC is for a $128 million net annual increase in Oklahoma base rates based upon a 10% ROE.

In September 2021, PSO, OCC staff and certain intervenors filed a contested joint stipulation and settlement agreement with the OCC that included a net annual revenue increase of $51 million based upon a 9.4% ROE. The agreement also included: (a) recovery of, with a debt return on, the Oklaunion Power Station regulatory asset through 2046 and continued recovery of Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 through 2040, (b) updated depreciation rates for plant in service, excluding coal production plant, (c) approval to defer a weighted average cost of capital carrying charge on PSO’s deferred tax asset associated with net operating loss on a stand-alone tax basis beginning in November 2021 and, contingent upon receipt of a supportive private letter ruling from the IRS, approval to collect the deferral through a rider over a 20-month period, (d) modification of the SPP transmission tariff to reduce the scope of tracked transmission expense and (e) modification of the Distribution Reliability and Safety Rider to limit recovery to previously approved projects not in service as of June 2021. PSO implemented an interim annual base rate increase of $51 million starting with the November 2021 billing cycle. In December 2021, the OCC approved the joint stipulation and settlement agreement without modifications. Effective February 2022, interim rates were terminated and updated rates and tariffs went into effect in accordance with the final order.

In February 2021, severe winter weather had a significant impact in SPP, resulting in the declaration of Energy Emergency Alert Levels 2 and 3 for the first time in SPP’s history. The winter storm increased the demand for natural gas and restricted the available natural gas supply 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, PSO’s natural gas expenses and purchases of electricity still to be recovered from customers are $679 million as of December 31, 2021.

In April 2021, the OCC approved a waiver for PSO allowing the deferral of the extraordinary fuel and purchases of electricity, including a carrying charge at an interim rate of 0.75%, over a longer time period than what the FAC traditionally allows. In January 2022, PSO, OCC staff and certain intervenors filed a joint stipulation and settlement agreement with the OCC to approve PSO’s securitization of the extraordinary fuel and purchases of electricity. The agreement includes a determination that all of PSO’s extraordinary fuel and purchases of electricity were prudent and reasonable and a 0.75% carrying charge, subject to true-up based on actual financing costs. In February 2022, the OCC approved the joint stipulation and settlement agreement in its financing order.

In 2012, SWEPCo filed a request with the PUCT to increase annual base rates primarily due to the completion of the Turk Plant. In 2013, the PUCT issued an order affirming the prudence of the Turk Plant but determined that the Turk Plant’s Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap established in a previous Certificate of Convenience and Necessity case also limited SWEPCo’s recovery of AFUDC in addition to limits on its recovery of cash construction costs.

Upon rehearing in 2014, the PUCT reversed its initial ruling and determined that AFUDC was excluded from the Turk Plant’s Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap. As a result, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of a previously recorded regulatory disallowance in 2013. In 2017, the Texas District Court upheld the PUCT’s 2014 order and intervenors filed appeals with the Texas Third Court of Appeals.

In July 2018, the Texas Third Court of Appeals reversed the PUCT’s judgment affirming the prudence of the Turk Plant and remanded the issue back to the PUCT. In January 2019, SWEPCo and the PUCT filed petitions for review with the Texas Supreme Court. In March 2021, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the July 2018 judgment of the Texas Third Court of Appeals and agreeing with the PUCT’s judgment affirming the prudence of the Turk Plant. In addition, the Texas Supreme Court remanded the AFUDC dispute back to the Texas Third Court of Appeals. No parties filed a motion for rehearing with the Texas Supreme Court. In August 2021, the Texas Third Court of Appeals reversed the Texas District Court judgement affirming the PUCT’s order on AFUDC, concluding that the language of the PUCT’s original 2008 order intended to include AFUDC in the Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap, and remanded the case to the PUCT for future proceedings. SWEPCo disagrees with the Court of Appeals decision and submitted a Petition for Review with the Texas Supreme Court in November 2021. The Texas Supreme Court requested responses to the Petition for Review, which are due by the end of March 2022.

If SWEPCo is ultimately unable to recover capitalized Turk Plant costs, including AFUDC in excess of the Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap, it would be expected to result in a pretax net disallowance ranging from $80 million to $100 million. In addition, if AFUDC is ultimately determined to be included in the Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap, SWEPCo estimates it may be required to make customer refunds ranging from $0 to $160 million related to revenues collected from February 2013 through December 2021 and such determination may reduce SWEPCo’s future revenues by approximately $15 million on an annual basis.

In 2016, SWEPCo filed a request with the PUCT for a net increase in Texas annual revenues of $69 million based upon a 10% ROE. In January 2018, the PUCT issued a final order approving a net increase in Texas annual revenues of $50 million based upon a ROE of 9.6%, effective May 2017. The final order also included: (a) approval to recover the Texas jurisdictional share of environmental investments placed in- service, as of June 30, 2016, at various plants, including Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3, (b) approval of recovery of, but no return on, the Texas jurisdictional share of the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2, (c) approval of $2 million in additional vegetation management expenses and (d) the rejection of SWEPCo’s proposed transmission cost recovery mechanism.

As a result of the final order, in 2017 SWEPCo: (a) recorded an impairment charge of $19 million, which included $7 million associated with the lack of return on Welsh Plant, Unit 2 and $12 million related to other disallowed plant investments, (b) recognized $32 million of additional revenues, for the period of May 2017 through December 2017, that was surcharged to customers in 2018 and (c) recognized an additional $7 million of expenses consisting primarily of depreciation expense and vegetation management expense, offset by the deferral of rate case expense. SWEPCo implemented new rates in February 2018 billings. The $32 million of additional 2017 revenues was collected during 2018. In March 2018, the PUCT clarified and corrected portions of the final order, without changing the overall decision or amounts of the rate change. The order has been appealed by various intervenors. The appeal will move forward following the conclusion of the 2012 Texas Base Rate Case. If certain parts of the PUCT order are overturned, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

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. The proposed net annual increase: (a) includes $5 million related to vegetation management to maintain and improve the reliability of SWEPCo’s Texas jurisdictional distribution system, (b) requests a $10 million annual depreciation increase and (c) seeks $2 million annually to establish a storm catastrophe reserve. In addition, SWEPCo also requested recovery of the Texas jurisdictional share of the Dolet Hills Power Station of $45 million which was retired in December 2021. 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 (d) the creation of a rider that would 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 would be recovered as a regulatory asset through 2046. As a result of the final order, SWEPCo recorded a disallowance of $12 million 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 December 2020, SWEPCo filed a request with the LPSC for a $134 million annual increase in Louisiana base rates based upon a proposed 10.35% ROE. SWEPCo subsequently revised the requested annual increase to $114 million to reflect removing hurricane storm restoration costs from the base case filing. The hurricane costs have been requested in a separate storm filing. See “2021 Louisiana Storm Cost Filing” below for more information. The base case filing would extend the formula rate plan for five years and includes modifications to the formula rate plan to allow for forward-looking transmission costs, reflects the impact of net operating losses associated with the acceleration of certain tax benefits and incorporates future federal corporate income tax changes. The proposed net annual increase requests a $32 million annual depreciation increase to recover Louisiana’s share of the Dolet Hills Power Station, Pirkey Power Plant and Welsh Plant, all of which are expected to be retired early.

In July 2021, the LPSC staff filed testimony supporting a $6 million annual increase in base rates based upon a ROE of 9.1% while other intervenors recommended a ROE ranging from 9.35% to 9.8%. The primary differences between SWEPCo’s requested annual increase in base rates and the LPSC staff’s recommendation include: (a) a reduction in depreciation expense, (b) recovery of Dolet Hills Power Station and Pirkey Power Plant in a separate rider mechanism, (c) the rejection of SWEPCo’s proposed adjustment to include a stand-alone net operating loss carryforward deferred tax asset in rate base and (d) a reduction in the proposed ROE.

In September 2021, SWEPCo filed rebuttal testimony supporting a revised requested annual increase in base rates of $95 million. The primary differences in the rebuttal testimony from the previous revised request of $114 million are modifications to the proposed recovery of the Dolet Hills Power Station and revisions to various proposed amortizations. LPSC staff and intervenor responses to SWEPCo’s rebuttal testimony were filed in October 2021. The procedural schedule for the case is on hold due to ongoing settlement discussions.

In July 2021, SWEPCo filed a request with the APSC for an $85 million annual increase in Arkansas base rates based upon a proposed 10.35% ROE with a capital structure of 48.7% debt and 51.3% common equity. The proposed annual increase includes: (a) a $41 million revenue requirement for the North Central Wind Facilities, (b) a $14 million annual depreciation increase primarily due to recovery of the Dolet Hills Power Station through 2026 and Pirkey Plant and Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 through 2037 and (c) a $6 million increase due to SPP costs. SWEPCo requested that rates become effective in June 2022.

APSC staff filed testimony supporting a $47 million annual increase in base rates based upon a ROE of 9.3% while other intervenors recommended a ROE ranging from 8.75% to 9.25%. The primary differences between SWEPCo’s requested annual increase in base rates and the APSC staff’s recommendation include: (a) recovery of the Dolet Hills Power Station through 2046 with no debt or equity return, (b) a reduction in the proposed ROE with a capital structure of 55.5% debt and 44.5% common equity and (c) lower depreciation rates. The APSC staff also recommended future generating facility retirements be treated similar to the Dolet Hills Power Station recommendation of recovery with no debt or equity return. Also, an intervenor recommended no debt or equity return on the Pirkey Power Plant after its retirement, which is currently expected to be in 2023. SWEPCo filed rebuttal testimony in January 2022 revising the requested annual increase in Arkansas base rates to $81 million with rates to be effective in June 2022. A hearing will be held at the APSC in March 2022. If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

In 2020, Hurricanes Laura and Delta caused power outages and extensive damage to the SWEPCo service territories, primarily impacting the Louisiana jurisdiction. Following both hurricanes, the LPSC issued orders allowing Louisiana utilities, including SWEPCo, to establish regulatory assets to track and defer expenses associated with these storms. In February 2021, severe winter weather impacted the Louisiana jurisdiction and in March 2021, the LPSC approved the deferral of incremental storm restoration expenses related to the winter storm. In October 2021, SWEPCo filed a request with the LPSC for recovery of $145 million in deferred storm costs associated with the three storms. As part of the filing, SWEPCo requested recovery of the carrying charges on the deferred regulatory asset at a weighted average cost of capital through a rider beginning in January 2022. LPSC staff testimony is due to the LPSC in May 2022 and an order is expected before the end of 2022. If any of the storm costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

As discussed in the “PSO Rate Matters” section above, 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 $430 million as of December 31, 2021, of which $103 million, $148 million and $179 million is related to the Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas jurisdictions, respectively.

In March 2021, the APSC issued an order authorizing recovery of the Arkansas jurisdictional share of the retail customer fuel costs over five years, with the appropriate carrying charge to be determined at a later date. Subsequently, SWEPCo began recovery of these fuel costs. SWEPCo is currently recovering the fuel costs at an interim carrying charge of 0.3%. In April 2021, SWEPCo filed testimony supporting a five-year recovery with a carrying charge of 6.05%, which has been supported by APSC staff. Various other parties have recommended recovery periods ranging from 5-20 years with a carrying charge of 1.65%. The APSC ordered more testimony regarding the option of utilizing securitization to recover the fuel costs. SWEPCo is awaiting a decision from the APSC. The prudence of these fuel costs is expected to be addressed in a separate proceeding.

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 a five-year recovery period inclusive of an interim carrying charge of 3.25%. SWEPCo will work with the LPSC to finalize the actual recovery period and determine the appropriate carrying charge in future proceedings.

In August 2021, SWEPCo filed an application with the PUCT to implement a net interim fuel surcharge for the Texas jurisdictional share of these retail fuel costs. The application requested a five-year recovery with a carrying charge of 7.18%. In October 2021, various intervenors filed testimony supporting a five-year recovery with a carrying charge ranging from 0.82% to 1.625%. In January 2022, an ALJ issued a PFD recommending a four-year recovery with a carrying charge the same as the annually set interest rate used for under-recovered fuel. In February 2022, SWEPCo filed exceptions to the PFD, disagreeing with the short-term interest rate recommended by the ALJ. SWEPCo is awaiting an order from the PUCT.

In May 2021, certain joint customers submitted a formal challenge at the FERC related to the 2020 Annual Update of the 2019 SPP Transmission Formula Rates of the AEP transmission owning subsidiaries within SPP. Management has reviewed the formal challenge and responses were filed with the FERC in 2021. If the FERC orders revenue refunds or reductions, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

In 2016, PJM approved the Independence Energy Connection Project (IEC) and included it in its Regional Transmission Expansion Plan to alleviate congestion. Transource Energy owns 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 (PA PUC) denied the IEC certificate for siting and construction of the portion in Pennsylvania. Transource Energy has appealed the PA PUC ruling in Pennsylvania state court and challenged the ruling before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The case before the state court is pending and the case before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania is currently suspended, pending the outcome of the case in the Pennsylvania state court.

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. PJM stated that the IEC has not been cancelled and remains necessary to alleviate congestion. As of December 31, 2021, AEP’s share of IEC capital expenditures was approximately $81 million. The FERC has previously granted abandonment benefits for this project, allowing the full recovery of prudently incurred costs if the project is cancelled 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.