Rate Matters

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2015

Rate Matters

RATE MATTERS

As discussed in the 2014 Annual Report, our subsidiaries are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. The Rate Matters note within our 2014 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 2015 and updates the 2014 Annual Report.

Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval

	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Storm Related Costs	$	20	$	20
Material and Supplies Related to Retired Plants	19		—
West Virginia Vegetation Management Program	—		20
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Asset Retirement Obligation Costs Related to Retired Plants	51		—
Virginia Demand Response Program Costs	11		9
Ormet Special Rate Recovery Mechanism	10		10
Storm Related Costs	3		100
Carbon Capture and Storage Product Validation Facility	—		13
IGCC Pre-Construction Costs	—		11
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	23		43
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	137	$	226

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

OPCo Rate Matters

Ohio Electric Security Plan Filings

2009 – 2011 ESP

The PUCO issued an order in March 2009 that modified and approved the ESP which established rates at the start of the April 2009 billing cycle through 2011. The order also provided a phase-in FAC, which was authorized to be recovered through a non-bypassable surcharge over the period 2012 through 2018.

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate proceeding which implemented a PIRR to recover deferred fuel costs in rates beginning September 2012. The PUCO ruled that carrying charges should be calculated without an offset for accumulated deferred income taxes and that a long-term debt rate should be applied when collections begin. In November 2012, OPCo appealed that PUCO order to the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming a long-term debt rate modified the previously adjudicated 2009 - 2011 ESP order, which granted a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) rate. In November 2012, the IEU filed an appeal of the PUCO decision that included the argument that carrying costs should be reduced due to an accumulated deferred income tax credit. In June 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision that reversed the PUCO order on the carrying cost rate issue and dismissed the appeal filed by the IEU. In June 2015, the IEU filed a motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court of Ohio related to the accumulated deferred income tax credit. If the Supreme Court of Ohio upholds its June 2015 order, it would remand the matter back to the PUCO for reinstatement of the WACC rate.

Management is unable to predict the outcome of the unresolved litigation discussed above. Depending on the ruling in this proceeding, it could impact future net income, cash flows and financial condition.

June 2012 – May 2015 ESP Including Capacity Charge

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order which adopted and modified a new ESP that established base generation rates through May 2015. This ruling was generally upheld in rehearing orders in January and March 2013.

In July 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate capacity proceeding which stated that OPCo must charge CRES providers the RPM price and authorized OPCo to defer a portion of its incurred capacity costs not recovered from CRES providers up to $188.88/MW day.  The OPCo RPM price collected from CRES providers, which includes reserve margins, was approximately $34/MW day through May 2014 and $150/MW day from June 2014 through May 2015. In December 2012, various parties filed notices of appeal of the capacity costs decision with the Supreme Court of Ohio.

As part of the August 2012 ESP order, the PUCO established a non-bypassable RSR, effective September 2012.  The RSR was collected from customers at $3.50/MWh through May 2014 and at $4.00/MWh for the period June 2014 through May 2015, with $1.00/MWh applied to the recovery of deferred capacity costs. In July 2014, OPCo submitted a separate application to continue the RSR to collect the unrecovered portion of the deferred capacity costs at the rate of $4.00/MWh, until the balance of the capacity deferrals has been collected. In April 2015, the PUCO issued an order approving the application to continue the RSR, with modifications. The order included approval to continue the collection of deferred capacity costs at a rate of $4.00/MWh beginning June 1, 2015 for approximately 32 months, with carrying costs at a long-term cost of debt rate. Additionally, the order stated that an audit will be conducted of the May 31, 2015 capacity deferral balance, which was $444 million. In May 2015, the PUCO granted intervenors requests for rehearing. As of June 30, 2015, OPCo's incurred deferred capacity costs balance of $432 million, including debt carrying costs, was recorded in Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet.

In 2013, the PUCO issued its Orders on Rehearing for the ESP which generally upheld its August 2012 order. The PUCO clarified that a final reconciliation of revenues and expenses would be permitted for any over- or under-recovery on several riders including fuel. In addition, the PUCO addressed certain issues around the energy auctions while other SSO issues related to the energy auctions were deferred to a separate docket related to the competitive bid process (CBP). In 2013, OPCo and various intervenors filed appeals with the Supreme Court of Ohio challenging portions of the PUCO’s ESP order. Oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Ohio were held in May 2015.

In November 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo’s CBP with modifications. As ordered, in 2014, OPCo conducted multiple energy-only auctions for a total of 100% of the SSO load with delivery beginning April 2014 through May 2015. As provided for in the June 2015 - May 2018 ESP, for delivery starting in June 2015, OPCo now conducts energy and capacity auctions for its entire SSO load. The PUCO also approved the unbundling of the FAC into fixed and energy-related components and an intervenor proposal to blend the $188.88/MW day capacity price in proportion to the percentage of energy planned to be auctioned. Additionally, the PUCO ordered that intervenor concerns related to the recovery of the fixed fuel costs through potentially both the FAC and the approved capacity charges be addressed in subsequent FAC proceedings.

In January 2014, the PUCO denied all rehearing requests and agreed to issue a supplemental request for an independent auditor in the 2012 - 2013 FAC proceeding to separately examine the recovery of the fixed fuel costs, including OVEC. In March 2014, the PUCO approved OPCo’s request to implement riders related to the unbundling of the FAC. In October 2014, the independent auditor, selected by the PUCO, filed its report for the period August 2012 through May 2015 with the PUCO. If the PUCO ultimately concludes that a portion of the fixed fuel costs are also recovered through OPCo's $188.88/MW day capacity charge, the independent auditor has recommended a methodology for calculating a refund of a portion of certain fixed fuel costs. The retail share of these fixed fuel costs is approximately $90 million annually. A hearing related to this matter has not been scheduled. Management believes that no over-recovery of costs has occurred and disagrees with the findings in the audit report.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect all components of its ESP rates, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

June 2015 - May 2018 ESP

In December 2013, OPCo filed an application with the PUCO to approve an ESP that included proposed rate adjustments and the continuation and modification of certain existing riders, including the Distribution Investment Rider (DIR), effective June 2015 through May 2018. The proposal included a return on common equity of 10.65% on capital costs for certain riders. The proposal also included a purchased power agreement (PPA) rider that would allow retail customers to receive a rate stabilizing charge or credit by hedging market-based prices with a cost-based PPA. The PPA would initially be based upon the OVEC contractual entitlement and could, upon further approval, be expanded to include other contracts involving other Ohio legacy generation assets. In October 2014, OPCo filed a separate application with the PUCO to propose a new extended PPA with AGR for 2,671 MW for inclusion in the PPA rider.

In February 2015, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo's ESP application, subject to certain modifications, with a return on common equity of 10.2% on capital costs for certain riders. The order included (a) approval of the DIR with modified rate caps established by the PUCO, (b) authorization to establish a zero rate rider for OPCo's proposed PPA, (c) the option for OPCo to reapply in a future proceeding with a more detailed PPA proposal and (d) a directive to continue to pursue the transfer of the OVEC contractual entitlement to AGR or to otherwise divest of its interest in OVEC. In May 2015, on rehearing, the PUCO issued an order that increased the DIR rate caps and deferred ruling on all requests for rehearing related to the establishment of the PPA rider. In June 2015, OPCo and various intervenors filed applications for rehearing with the PUCO related to the May 2015 order on rehearing. In July 2015, the PUCO granted the requests for rehearing.

In May 2015, OPCo filed an amended PPA application between OPCo and AGR that (a) included OPCo's OVEC contractual entitlement, (b) addressed the PPA requirements set forth in the PUCO's February 2015 order, (c) updated supporting testimony to reflect a current analysis of the PPA proposal and (d) continued to include the 2,671 MW to be available for capacity, energy and ancillary services, produced by AGR over the lives of the respective generating units.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect all components of its ESP rates, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Significantly Excessive Earnings Test Filings

In January 2011, the PUCO issued an order on the 2009 SEET filing. The order gave consideration for a future commitment to invest $20 million to support the development of a large solar farm. In January 2013, the PUCO found there was not a need for the large solar farm. The PUCO noted that OPCo remains obligated to spend $20 million on this solar project or another project. In September 2013, a proposed second phase of OPCo’s gridSMART^® program was filed with the PUCO which included a proposed project to satisfy this PUCO directive. A decision from the PUCO is pending.

In June 2015, OPCo filed its 2014 SEET filing with the PUCO. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of 2014 SEET requirements.

Corporate Separation

In October 2012, the PUCO issued an order which approved the corporate separation of OPCo’s generation assets including the transfer of OPCo’s generation assets and associated generation liabilities at net book value to AGR. In June 2013, the IEU filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming the PUCO order approving the corporate separation was unlawful. A decision from the Supreme Court of Ohio is pending. In December 2013, corporate separation of OPCo’s generation assets was completed. If any part of the PUCO order is overturned, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2009 Fuel Adjustment Clause Audit

In January 2012, the PUCO issued an order in OPCo’s 2009 FAC that the remaining $65 million in proceeds from a 2008 coal contract settlement agreement be applied against OPCo’s under-recovered fuel balance. In April 2012, on rehearing, the PUCO ordered that the settlement credit only needed to reflect the Ohio retail jurisdictional share of the gain not already flowed through the FAC with carrying charges. As a result, OPCo recorded a $30 million net favorable adjustment on the statement of income in 2012. The January 2012 PUCO order also stated that a consultant should be hired to review the coal reserve valuation and recommend whether any additional value should benefit ratepayers.

In September 2014, the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the PUCO order on appeal. A review of the coal reserve valuation by an outside consultant has not been initiated by the PUCO. If the PUCO ultimately determines that additional amounts should benefit ratepayers as a result of the consultant’s review of the coal reserve valuation, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2012 and 2013 Fuel Adjustment Clause Audits

In May 2014, the PUCO-selected outside consultant provided its final report related to its 2012 and 2013 FAC audit which included certain unfavorable recommendations related to the FAC recovery for 2012 and 2013. These recommendations are opposed by OPCo. In addition, the PUCO will consider the results of the final audit of the recovery of fixed fuel costs that was issued in October 2014. See the "June 2012 - May 2015 ESP Including Capacity Charge" section above. If the PUCO orders a reduction to the FAC deferral or a refund to customers, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Ormet

Ormet, a large aluminum company, had a contract to purchase power from OPCo through 2018. In 2013, Ormet filed for bankruptcy and subsequently shut down operations. In March 2014, the PUCO issued an order in OPCo’s Economic Development Rider (EDR) filing allowing OPCo to include $39 million of Ormet-related foregone revenues in the EDR effective April 2014. The order stated that if the stipulation agreement between OPCo and Ormet is subsequently adopted by the PUCO, OPCo could file an application to modify the EDR rate for the remainder of the period requesting recovery of the remaining $10 million of Ormet deferrals which, as of June 30, 2015, is recorded in Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet. In April 2014, an intervenor filed testimony objecting to $5 million of the remaining foregone revenues. A hearing at the PUCO related to the stipulation agreement was held in May 2014.

In addition, in the 2009 - 2011 ESP proceeding, intervenors requested that OPCo be required to refund the Ormet-related revenues under a previous interim arrangement (effective from January 2009 through September 2009) and requested that the PUCO prevent OPCo from collecting Ormet-related revenues in the future. Through September 2009, the last month of the interim arrangement, OPCo had $64 million of deferred FAC costs related to the interim arrangement, excluding $2 million of unrecognized equity carrying costs. The PUCO did not take any action on this request. The intervenors raised this issue again in response to OPCo’s November 2009 filing to approve recovery of the deferral under the interim agreement.

To the extent amounts discussed above are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

SWEPCo Rate Matters

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. Additionally, the PUCT deferred consideration of the requested increase in depreciation expense related to the change in the 2016 retirement date of the Welsh Plant, Unit 2. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was $83 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.

Upon rehearing in January 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, in the fourth quarter of 2013, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of previously recorded regulatory disallowances. The resulting annual base rate increase is approximately $52 million. In March 2014, the PUCT issued an order related to the January 2014 PUCT ruling and in April 2014, this order became final. In May 2014, intervenors filed appeals of that order with the Texas District Court. In June 2014, SWEPCo intervened in those appeals and filed initial responses.

If certain parts of the PUCT order are overturned or if SWEPCo cannot ultimately recover its Texas jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant investment, including AFUDC, or its retirement-related costs and potential fuel or replacement power disallowances related to Welsh Plant, Unit 2, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In 2012, SWEPCo initiated a proceeding to establish new formula base rates in Louisiana, including recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share (approximately 29%) of the Turk Plant. In February 2013, a settlement was filed and approved by the LPSC. The settlement increased SWEPCo's Louisiana total rates by approximately $2 million annually, effective March 2013, which consisted of an increase in base rates of approximately $85 million annually offset by a decrease in fuel and other rates of approximately $83 million annually.  The March 2013 base rates are based on a 10% return on common equity and cost recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant and Stall Unit. The rates are subject to refund based on the staff review of the cost of service and the prudency review of the Turk Plant. The settlement also provided that the LPSC review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo recover non-fuel Turk Plant costs and a full weighted-average cost of capital return on the prudently incurred Turk Plant investment in jurisdictional rate base, effective January 2013. In December 2014, the LPSC approved a settlement agreement related to the staff review of the cost of service. The settlement agreement reduced the requested revenue increase by $3 million, primarily due to the timing of both the allowed recovery of certain existing regulatory assets and the establishment of a regulatory asset for certain previously expensed costs. If the LPSC orders refunds based upon the pending prudence review of the Turk Plant investment, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2014 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In April 2014, SWEPCo filed its annual formula rate plan for test year 2013 with the LPSC.  The filing included a $5 million annual increase, which was effective August 2014.  SWEPCo also proposed to increase rates by an additional $15 million annually, effective January 2015, for a total annual increase of $20 million. This additional increase reflects the cost of incremental generation to be used to serve Louisiana customers in 2015 due to the expiration of a purchase power agreement attributable to Louisiana customers.  In December 2014, the LPSC approved a partial settlement agreement that included the implementation of the $15 million annual increase in rates effective January 2015. These increases are subject to LPSC staff review and are subject to refund.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2015 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In April 2015, SWEPCo filed its formula rate plan for test year 2014 with the LPSC.  The filing included a $14 million annual increase, which will be effective August 2015.  This increase is subject to LPSC staff review and is subject to refund.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 – Environmental Projects

To comply with pending Federal EPA regulations, SWEPCo is currently constructing environmental control projects to meet mercury and air toxics standards for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 at a cost of approximately $410 million, excluding AFUDC.  Management currently estimates that the total environmental projects to be completed through 2020 for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 will cost approximately $600 million, excluding AFUDC.  As of June 30, 2015, SWEPCo has incurred costs of $256 million, including AFUDC, and has remaining contractual construction obligations of $89 million related to these projects.  SWEPCo will seek recovery of these project costs from customers through filings at the state commissions and the FERC. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $484 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. 

APCo and WPCo Rate Matters

2014 West Virginia Base Rate Case

In June 2014, APCo filed a request with the WVPSC to increase annual base rates by $181 million, based upon a 10.62% return on common equity, to be effective in the second quarter of 2015. The filing included a request to increase generation depreciation rates primarily due to the increase in plant investment and changes in the expected service lives of various generating units. The filing also requested recovery of $89 million in regulatory assets over five years related to 2012 West Virginia storm costs, IGCC and other deferred costs. In addition to the base rate request, the filing also included a request to implement a rider of approximately $45 million annually to recover vegetation management costs, including a return on capital investment.

In May 2015, the WVPSC issued an order on the base rate case. Upon implementation of the order in May 2015, and consistent with the WVPSC authorized total revenue, annual base rates were authorized to be increased by $99 million based upon a 9.75% return on common equity. The order included a delayed billing of $25 million of the annual base rate increase to residential customers until July 2016. The order provided for carrying charges based upon a WACC rate for the $25 million annual delayed billing through June 2016, and stated recovery would be addressed in the next ENEC case scheduled for 2016. Additionally, the order included approval of (a) an initial vegetation management rider of $45 million annually, (b) revised deprecation rates, including recovery of plants to be retired and (c) the recovery of $89 million in previously recorded regulatory assets, which will predominantly be recovered over five years.

In June 2015, the WVPSC staff and intervenors filed motions for reconsideration and clarification related to various issues including recovery of lost revenues and the allowed carrying charge rate related to the delayed residential revenues. In July 2015, the WVPSC issued an order that denied all motions for reconsideration.

2015 Virginia Regulatory Asset Proceeding

In January 2015, the Virginia SCC initiated a separate proceeding to address the proper treatment of APCo’s authorized regulatory assets. As of June 30, 2015, APCo’s authorized regulatory assets under review in this proceeding are estimated to be $12 million. In February and March 2015, briefs related to this proceeding were filed by various parties. If any of these costs, or any additional costs that may be subject to review, are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

New Virginia Legislation Affecting Biennial Reviews

In February 2015, amendments to Virginia law governing the regulation of investor-owned electric utilities were enacted. Under the amended Virginia law, APCo’s existing generation and distribution base rates are frozen until after the Virginia SCC rules on APCo’s next biennial review, which APCo will file in March 2020 for the 2018 and 2019 test years. These amendments also preclude the Virginia SCC from performing biennial reviews of APCo’s earnings for the years 2014 through 2017. APCo's financial statements adequately address the impact of these amendments. The new law provides that APCo will absorb its Virginia jurisdictional share of incremental generation and distribution costs incurred during 2014 through 2017 that are associated with severe weather events and/or natural disasters and costs associated with potential impairments related to new carbon emission guidelines issued by the Federal EPA.

PSO Rate Matters

2015 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In July 2015, PSO filed a request with the OCC to increase annual revenues by $137 million to recover costs associated with its environmental compliance plan for the Federal EPA’s Regional Haze Rule and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and to recover investments and other costs that have increased since the last base rate case. The annual increase consists of (a) a base rate increase of $89 million, which includes $48 million in increased depreciation expense that reflects, among other things, recovery through June 2026 for Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4, (b) a rider or base rate increase of $44 million to recover costs for the environmental controls being installed on Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and the Comanche Plant and (c) a request to include environmental consumable costs in the FAC, estimated to be $4 million annually. The rate increase includes a proposed return on equity of 10.5% and is proposed to be effective in January 2016, except for the $44 million for environmental investments, which is proposed to be effective in March 2016, after the Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls go in service. The total estimated cost of the environmental controls to be installed at Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and the Comanche Plant is $219 million, excluding AFUDC. As of June 30, 2015, PSO has incurred costs of $140 million related to these projects, including AFUDC.

In addition, the filing also notified the OCC that future incremental purchased capacity and energy costs of an estimated $35 million will be incurred related to the environmental compliance plan, due to the closure of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 in April 2016, which would be recovered through the FAC. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 was $95 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.

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

2014 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In April 2015, the OCC issued an order that approved a non-unanimous stipulation agreement between PSO, the OCC staff and certain intervenors. The approved stipulation provides for no overall change to the transmission rider or to annual revenues, other than additional revenues through a separate rider related to advanced metering costs, and that the terms of the stipulation be effective November 2014. The advanced metering rider provides $24 million of revenues over 14 months beginning in November 2014 and increases to $27 million in 2016. The stipulation also included (a) new depreciation rates for advanced metering investments and existing meters, also effective November 2014, (b) a return on common equity of 9.85% to be used only in the formula to calculate AFUDC, factoring of customer receivables and for riders with an equity component and (c) recovery of regulatory assets for 2013 storms and regulatory case expenses. The advanced metering cost rider was implemented in November 2014.

I&M Rate Matters

Tanners Creek Plant

In October 2014, I&M filed an application with the IURC seeking approval of revised depreciation rates for Rockport Plant, Unit 1 and the Tanners Creek Plant. Upon retirement of the Tanners Creek Plant, I&M proposed that, for purposes of determining its depreciation rates, the net book value of the Tanners Creek Plant be recovered over the remaining life of the Rockport Plant. The new depreciation rates would result in a decrease in I&M's Indiana jurisdictional electric depreciation expense which I&M proposed to reduce customer rates through a credit rider. In May 2015, the IURC issued an order approving I&M's request for revised depreciation rates.

In May 2015, Tanners Creek Plant was retired. Upon retirement, $265 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet related to the net book value of Tanners Creek Plant and is being amortized over 29 years. An additional $38 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet for related asset retirement obligations and materials and supplies. These additional regulatory assets are currently not being amortized, pending regulatory approval.

Transmission, Distribution and Storage System Improvement Charge (TDSIC)

In October 2014, I&M filed petitions with the IURC for approval of a TDSIC Rider and approval of I&M’s seven-year TDSIC Plan, from 2015 through 2021, for eligible transmission, distribution and storage system improvements. The initial estimated cost of the capital improvements and associated operation and maintenance expenses included in the TDSIC Plan of $787 million, excluding AFUDC, would be updated annually. The TDSIC Plan included distribution investments specific to the Indiana jurisdiction. The TDSIC Rider would allow the periodic adjustment of I&M's rates to provide for timely recovery of 80% of approved TDSIC Plan costs. I&M would defer the remaining 20% of approved TDSIC Plan costs to be recovered in I&M's next general rate case. I&M did not seek a rate adjustment in this proceeding but sought approval of a TDSIC Rider rate adjustment mechanism for subsequent proceedings. In April 2015, I&M filed a notice with the IURC to seek approval of the proposed TDSIC Plan excluding $117 million of certain projects that were challenged in this proceeding. In May 2015, the IURC issued an order that denied I&M's TDSIC Plan and Rider. In May 2015, I&M filed a petition for reconsideration and/or rehearing with the IURC and in June 2015, filed a notice of appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals.

KPCo Rate Matters

Plant Transfer

In October 2013, the KPSC issued an order that approved a modified settlement agreement which included the approval to transfer to KPCo a one-half interest in the Mitchell Plant, comprising 780 MW of average annual generating capacity. In December 2013, the transfer of a one-half interest in the Mitchell Plant to KPCo was completed. In December 2013, the Attorney General filed an appeal of the order with the Franklin County Circuit Court. In April 2015, the Franklin County Circuit Court issued an order that affirmed the KPSC's October 2013 order. In May 2015, the Attorney General filed an appeal of the April 2015 Franklin County Circuit Court order that had affirmed the KPSC's order.

Consistent with KPCo’s December 2012 plant transfer filing with the KPSC, Big Sandy Plant, Unit 2 was retired in May 2015. Upon retirement, $194 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet related to the net book value of Big Sandy Plant, Unit 2 and the related asset retirement obligations, costs of removal and materials and supplies. These regulatory assets will be amortized over 25 years, effective July 2015.

Kentucky Fuel Adjustment Clause Review

In August 2014, the KPSC issued an order initiating a review of KPCo's FAC from November 2013 through April 2014. In January 2015, the KPSC issued an order disallowing certain FAC costs during the period of January 2014 through May 2015 while KPCo owned and operated both Big Sandy Plant, Unit 2 and its one-half interest in the Mitchell Plant. As a result of this order, KPCo recorded a regulatory disallowance of $36 million in December 2014. In February 2015, KPCo filed an appeal of this order with the Franklin County Circuit Court. In April 2015, the Franklin County Circuit Court issued an order approving intervenors' requests to hold this case in abeyance until the KPSC issues a final order in KPCo’s two-year FAC review case for the period November 2012 through October 2014.

2014 Kentucky Base Rate Case

In December 2014, KPCo filed a request with the KPSC for a net increase in rates of $70 million, which consists of a $75 million increase in rider rates, offset by a $5 million decrease in annual base rates, to be effective July 2015 based upon a 10.62% return on common equity.  The net increase reflects KPCo's ownership interest in the Mitchell Plant, riders to recover the Big Sandy Plant retirement and operational costs and the inclusion of an environmental compliance plan related to the Mitchell Plant FGD.  Additionally, the filing included a request to recover deferred storm costs.  In March 2015, intervenors filed testimony which recommended net increases in rates ranging from $20 million to $26 million.  These increases consisted of proposed increases in rider rates ranging from $55 million to $63 million, offset by decreases in annual base rates ranging from $35 million to $37 million and based upon returns on common equity ranging from 8.65% to 8.75%.  Intervenor recommendations included the recovery of deferred storm costs. 

In April 2015, a non-unanimous stipulation agreement between KPCo and certain intervenors was filed with the KPSC. The parties to the stipulation recommended a net revenue increase of $45 million, which consisted of a $68 million increase in rider rates, offset by a $23 million decrease in annual base rates, to be effective July 2015. The proposed net increase reflects KPCo's ownership interest in the Mitchell Plant, riders to recover the Big Sandy Plant retirement and operational costs and the inclusion of an environmental compliance plan.  Additionally, the agreement included (a) recovery of $12 million of deferred storm costs, (b) any difference between the actual off-system sales margins and the $15 million included in the proposed annual base rates to be shared with 75% to the customer and 25% to KPCo and (c) dismissal of the KPCo and the Kentucky Industrial Utility Customers appeals of the KPSC order in the KPCo fuel adjustment clause review for November 2012 through October 2014.

In June 2015, the KPSC issued an order that approved a modified stipulation agreement. The order approved a net revenue increase of $45 million, as proposed in the stipulation agreement, and contained modifications that included (a) approval to recover $2 million of IGCC and certain carbon capture study costs, both over 25 years, (b) no deferral of certain PJM costs and (c) denial of the recovery of certain potential purchased power costs through a rider. Once this order becomes final and non-appealable, KPCo will withdraw its appeal of the KPSC order in the KPCo fuel adjustment clause review. See "Kentucky Fuel Adjustment Clause Review" section above.

Appalachian Power Co [Member]

Rate Matters

RATE MATTERS

As discussed in the 2014 Annual Report, the Registrant Subsidiaries are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. The Rate Matters note within the 2014 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 2015 and updates the 2014 Annual Report.

Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval

	APCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Materials and Supplies Related to Retired Plants	$	7,588	$	—
Vegetation Management Program – West Virginia	—		19,089
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Asset Retirement Obligation Costs Related to Retired Plants	24,399		—
Demand Response Program Costs – Virginia	10,781		8,791
Amos Plant Transfer Costs – West Virginia	1,950		1,377
Storm Related Costs – West Virginia	—		65,206
Carbon Capture and Storage Product Validation Facility – West Virginia, FERC	—		13,264
IGCC Pre-Construction Costs – West Virginia, FERC	—		10,838
Expanded Net Energy Charge – Coal Inventory	—		3,421
Expanded Net Energy Charge – Construction Surcharge	—		2,307
Carbon Capture and Storage Commercial Scale Facility – West Virginia, FERC	—		1,287
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	168		168
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	44,886	$	125,748

	I&M
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Materials and Supplies Related to Retired Plants	$	11,722	$	—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Asset Retirement Obligation Costs Related to Retired Plants	27,079		—
Cook Plant Turbine	8,169		6,596
Stranded Costs on Abandoned Plants	3,897		3,897
Deferred Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project Costs – Michigan	2,721		1,222
Storm Related Costs – Indiana	857		1,074
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	547		860
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	54,992	$	13,649

	OPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Ormet Special Rate Recovery Mechanism	$	10,483	$	10,483
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	44		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	10,527	$	10,483

	PSO
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm Related Costs	$	—	$	16,614
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	—		1,079
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	—	$	17,693

	SWEPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Rate Case Expenses	$	—	$	8,126
Shipe Road Transmission Project	3,022		2,287
Asset Retirement Obligation	1,320		1,144
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	558		558
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	4,900	$	12,115

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

OPCo Rate Matters

Ohio Electric Security Plan Filings

2009 – 2011 ESP

The PUCO issued an order in March 2009 that modified and approved the ESP which established rates at the start of the April 2009 billing cycle through 2011. The order also provided a phase-in FAC, which was authorized to be recovered through a non-bypassable surcharge over the period 2012 through 2018.

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate proceeding which implemented a PIRR to recover deferred fuel costs in rates beginning September 2012. The PUCO ruled that carrying charges should be calculated without an offset for accumulated deferred income taxes and that a long-term debt rate should be applied when collections begin. In November 2012, OPCo appealed that PUCO order to the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming a long-term debt rate modified the previously adjudicated 2009 - 2011 ESP order, which granted a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) rate. In November 2012, the IEU filed an appeal of the PUCO decision that included the argument that carrying costs should be reduced due to an accumulated deferred income tax credit. In June 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision that reversed the PUCO order on the carrying cost rate issue and dismissed the appeal filed by the IEU. In June 2015, the IEU filed a motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court of Ohio related to the accumulated deferred income tax credit. If the Supreme Court of Ohio upholds its June 2015 order, it would remand the matter back to the PUCO for reinstatement of the WACC rate.

Management is unable to predict the outcome of the unresolved litigation discussed above. Depending on the ruling in this proceeding, it could impact future net income, cash flows and financial condition.

June 2012 – May 2015 ESP Including Capacity Charge

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order which adopted and modified a new ESP that established base generation rates through May 2015. This ruling was generally upheld in rehearing orders in January and March 2013.

In July 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate capacity proceeding which stated that OPCo must charge CRES providers the RPM price and authorized OPCo to defer a portion of its incurred capacity costs not recovered from CRES providers up to $188.88/MW day.  The OPCo RPM price collected from CRES providers, which includes reserve margins, was approximately $34/MW day through May 2014 and $150/MW day from June 2014 through May 2015.  In December 2012, various parties filed notices of appeal of the capacity costs decision with the Supreme Court of Ohio.  

As part of the August 2012 ESP order, the PUCO established a non-bypassable RSR, effective September 2012.  The RSR was collected from customers at $3.50/MWh through May 2014 and at $4.00/MWh for the period June 2014 through May 2015, with $1.00/MWh applied to the recovery of deferred capacity costs. In July 2014, OPCo submitted a separate application to continue the RSR to collect the unrecovered portion of the deferred capacity costs at the rate of $4.00/MWh until the balance of the capacity deferrals has been collected. In April 2015, the PUCO issued an order approving the application to continue the RSR, with modifications. The order included approval to continue the collection of deferred capacity costs at a rate of $4.00/MWh beginning June 1, 2015 for approximately 32 months, with carrying costs at a long-term cost of debt rate. Additionally, the order stated that an audit will be conducted of the May 31, 2015 capacity deferral balance, which was $444 million. In May 2015, the PUCO granted intervenors requests for rehearing. As of June 30, 2015, OPCo's incurred deferred capacity costs balance of $432 million, including debt carrying costs, was recorded in Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet.

In 2013, the PUCO issued its Orders on Rehearing for the ESP which generally upheld its August 2012 order. The PUCO clarified that a final reconciliation of revenues and expenses would be permitted for any over- or under-recovery on several riders including fuel. In addition, the PUCO addressed certain issues around the energy auctions while other SSO issues related to the energy auctions were deferred to a separate docket related to the competitive bid process (CBP). In 2013, OPCo and various intervenors filed appeals with the Supreme Court of Ohio challenging portions of the PUCO’s ESP order. Oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Ohio were held in May 2015.

In November 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo’s CBP with modifications. As ordered, in 2014, OPCo conducted multiple energy-only auctions for a total of 100% of the SSO load with delivery beginning April 2014 through May 2015. As provided for in the June 2015 - May 2018 ESP, for delivery starting in June 2015, OPCo now conducts energy and capacity auctions for its entire SSO load. The PUCO also approved the unbundling of the FAC into fixed and energy-related components and an intervenor proposal to blend the $188.88/MW day capacity price in proportion to the percentage of energy planned to be auctioned. Additionally, the PUCO ordered that intervenor concerns related to the recovery of the fixed fuel costs through potentially both the FAC and the approved capacity charges be addressed in subsequent FAC proceedings.

In January 2014, the PUCO denied all rehearing requests and agreed to issue a supplemental request for an independent auditor in the 2012 - 2013 FAC proceeding to separately examine the recovery of the fixed fuel costs, including OVEC. In March 2014, the PUCO approved OPCo’s request to implement riders related to the unbundling of the FAC. In October 2014, the independent auditor, selected by the PUCO, filed its report for the period August 2012 through May 2015 with the PUCO. If the PUCO ultimately concludes that a portion of the fixed fuel costs are also recovered through OPCo's $188.88/MW day capacity charge, the independent auditor has recommended a methodology for calculating a refund of a portion of certain fixed fuel costs. The retail share of these fixed fuel costs is approximately $90 million annually. A hearing related to this matter has not been scheduled. Management believes that no over-recovery of costs has occurred and disagrees with the findings in the audit report.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect all components of its ESP rates, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

June 2015 - May 2018 ESP

In December 2013, OPCo filed an application with the PUCO to approve an ESP that included proposed rate adjustments and the continuation and modification of certain existing riders, including the Distribution Investment Rider (DIR), effective June 2015 through May 2018. The proposal included a return on common equity of 10.65% on capital costs for certain riders. The proposal also included a purchased power agreement (PPA) rider that would allow retail customers to receive a rate stabilizing charge or credit by hedging market-based prices with a cost-based PPA. The PPA would initially be based upon the OVEC contractual entitlement and could, upon further approval, be expanded to include other contracts involving other Ohio legacy generation assets. In October 2014, OPCo filed a separate application with the PUCO to propose a new extended PPA with AGR for 2,671 MW for inclusion in the PPA rider.

In February 2015, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo's ESP application, subject to certain modifications, with a return on common equity of 10.2% on capital costs for certain riders. The order included (a) approval of the DIR with modified rate caps established by the PUCO, (b) authorization to establish a zero rate rider for OPCo's proposed PPA, (c) the option for OPCo to reapply in a future proceeding with a more detailed PPA proposal and (d) a directive to continue to pursue the transfer of the OVEC contractual entitlement to AGR or to otherwise divest of its interest in OVEC. In May 2015, on rehearing, the PUCO issued an order that increased the DIR rate caps and deferred ruling on all requests for rehearing related to the establishment of the PPA rider. In June 2015, OPCo and various intervenors filed applications for rehearing with the PUCO related to the May 2015 order on rehearing. In July 2015, the PUCO granted the requests for rehearing.

In May 2015, OPCo filed an amended PPA application between OPCo and AGR that (a) included OPCo's OVEC contractual entitlement, (b) addressed the PPA requirements set forth in the PUCO's February 2015 order, (c) updated supporting testimony to reflect a current analysis of the PPA proposal and (d) continued to include the 2,671 MW to be available for capacity, energy and ancillary services, produced by AGR over the lives of the respective generating units.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect all components of its ESP rates, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Significantly Excessive Earnings Test Filings

In January 2011, the PUCO issued an order on the 2009 SEET filing. The order gave consideration for a future commitment to invest $20 million to support the development of a large solar farm. In January 2013, the PUCO found there was not a need for the large solar farm. The PUCO noted that OPCo remains obligated to spend $20 million on this solar project or another project. In September 2013, a proposed second phase of OPCo’s gridSMART^® program was filed with the PUCO which included a proposed project to satisfy this PUCO directive. A decision from the PUCO is pending.

In June 2015, OPCo filed its 2014 SEET filing with the PUCO. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of 2014 SEET requirements.

Corporate Separation

In October 2012, the PUCO issued an order which approved the corporate separation of OPCo’s generation assets including the transfer of OPCo’s generation assets and associated generation liabilities at net book value to AGR. In June 2013, the IEU filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming the PUCO order approving the corporate separation was unlawful. A decision from the Supreme Court of Ohio is pending. In December 2013, corporate separation of OPCo’s generation assets was completed. If any part of the PUCO order is overturned, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2009 Fuel Adjustment Clause Audit

In January 2012, the PUCO issued an order in OPCo’s 2009 FAC that the remaining $65 million in proceeds from a 2008 coal contract settlement agreement be applied against OPCo’s under-recovered fuel balance. In April 2012, on rehearing, the PUCO ordered that the settlement credit only needed to reflect the Ohio retail jurisdictional share of the gain not already flowed through the FAC with carrying charges. As a result, OPCo recorded a $30 million net favorable adjustment on the statement of income in 2012. The January 2012 PUCO order also stated that a consultant should be hired to review the coal reserve valuation and recommend whether any additional value should benefit ratepayers.

In September 2014, the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the PUCO order on appeal. A review of the coal reserve valuation by an outside consultant has not been initiated by the PUCO. If the PUCO ultimately determines that additional amounts should benefit ratepayers as a result of the consultant’s review of the coal reserve valuation, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2012 and 2013 Fuel Adjustment Clause Audits

In May 2014, the PUCO-selected outside consultant provided its final report related to its 2012 and 2013 FAC audit which included certain unfavorable recommendations related to the FAC recovery for 2012 and 2013. These recommendations are opposed by OPCo. In addition, the PUCO will consider the results of the final audit of the recovery of fixed fuel costs that was issued in October 2014. See the "June 2012 - May 2015 ESP Including Capacity Charge" section above. If the PUCO orders a reduction to the FAC deferral or a refund to customers, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Ormet

Ormet, a large aluminum company, had a contract to purchase power from OPCo through 2018. In 2013, Ormet filed for bankruptcy and subsequently shut down operations. In March 2014, the PUCO issued an order in OPCo’s Economic Development Rider (EDR) filing allowing OPCo to include $39 million of Ormet-related foregone revenues in the EDR effective April 2014. The order stated that if the stipulation agreement between OPCo and Ormet is subsequently adopted by the PUCO, OPCo could file an application to modify the EDR rate for the remainder of the period requesting recovery of the remaining $10 million of Ormet deferrals which, as of June 30, 2015, is recorded in Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet. In April 2014, an intervenor filed testimony objecting to $5 million of the remaining foregone revenues. A hearing at the PUCO related to the stipulation agreement was held in May 2014.

In addition, in the 2009 - 2011 ESP proceeding, intervenors requested that OPCo be required to refund the Ormet-related revenues under a previous interim arrangement (effective from January 2009 through September 2009) and requested that the PUCO prevent OPCo from collecting Ormet-related revenues in the future. Through September 2009, the last month of the interim arrangement, OPCo had $64 million of deferred FAC costs related to the interim arrangement, excluding $2 million of unrecognized equity carrying costs. The PUCO did not take any action on this request. The intervenors raised this issue again in response to OPCo’s November 2009 filing to approve recovery of the deferral under the interim agreement.

To the extent amounts discussed above are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

SWEPCo Rate Matters

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. Additionally, the PUCT deferred consideration of the requested increase in depreciation expense related to the change in the 2016 retirement date of the Welsh Plant, Unit 2. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was $83 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.

Upon rehearing in January 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, in the fourth quarter of 2013, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of previously recorded regulatory disallowances. The resulting annual base rate increase is approximately $52 million. In March 2014, the PUCT issued an order related to the January 2014 PUCT ruling and in April 2014, this order became final. In May 2014, intervenors filed appeals of that order with the Texas District Court. In June 2014, SWEPCo intervened in those appeals and filed initial responses.

If certain parts of the PUCT order are overturned or if SWEPCo cannot ultimately recover its Texas jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant investment, including AFUDC, or its retirement-related costs and potential fuel or replacement power disallowances related to Welsh Plant, Unit 2, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In 2012, SWEPCo initiated a proceeding to establish new formula base rates in Louisiana, including recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share (approximately 29%) of the Turk Plant.  In February 2013, a settlement was filed and approved by the LPSC.  The settlement increased SWEPCo's Louisiana total rates by approximately $2 million annually, effective March 2013, which consisted of an increase in base rates of approximately $85 million annually offset by a decrease in fuel and other rates of approximately $83 million annually.  The March 2013 base rates are based on a 10% return on common equity and cost recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant and Stall Unit. The rates are subject to refund based on the staff review of the cost of service and the prudency review of the Turk Plant. The settlement also provided that the LPSC review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo recover non-fuel Turk Plant costs and a full weighted-average cost of capital return on the prudently incurred Turk Plant investment in jurisdictional rate base, effective January 2013. In December 2014, the LPSC approved a settlement agreement related to the staff review of the cost of service. The settlement agreement reduced the requested revenue increase by $3 million, primarily due to the timing of both the allowed recovery of certain existing regulatory assets and the establishment of a regulatory asset for certain previously expensed costs. If the LPSC orders refunds based upon the pending prudence review of the Turk Plant investment, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2014 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In April 2014, SWEPCo filed its annual formula rate plan for test year 2013 with the LPSC.  The filing included a $5 million annual increase, which was effective August 2014.  SWEPCo also proposed to increase rates by an additional $15 million annually, effective January 2015, for a total annual increase of $20 million. This additional increase reflects the cost of incremental generation to be used to serve Louisiana customers in 2015 due to the expiration of a purchase power agreement attributable to Louisiana customers.  In December 2014, the LPSC approved a partial settlement agreement that included the implementation of the $15 million annual increase in rates effective January 2015. These increases are subject to LPSC staff review and are subject to refund.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2015 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In April 2015, SWEPCo filed its formula rate plan for test year 2014 with the LPSC.  The filing included a $14 million annual increase, which will be effective August 2015.  This increase is subject to LPSC staff review and is subject to refund.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 – Environmental Projects

To comply with pending Federal EPA regulations, SWEPCo is currently constructing environmental control projects to meet mercury and air toxics standards for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 at a cost of approximately $410 million, excluding AFUDC.  Management currently estimates that the total environmental projects to be completed through 2020 for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 will cost approximately $600 million, excluding AFUDC.  As of June 30, 2015, SWEPCo has incurred costs of $256 million, including AFUDC, and has remaining contractual construction obligations of $89 million related to these projects.  SWEPCo will seek recovery of these project costs from customers through filings at the state commissions and the FERC. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $484 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. 

APCo Rate Matters

2014 West Virginia Base Rate Case

In June 2014, APCo filed a request with the WVPSC to increase annual base rates by $156 million, based upon a 10.62% return on common equity, to be effective in the second quarter of 2015. The filing included a request to increase generation depreciation rates primarily due to the increase in plant investment and changes in the expected service lives of various generating units. The filing also requested recovery of $77 million in regulatory assets over five years related to 2012 West Virginia storm costs, IGCC and other deferred costs. In addition to the base rate request, the filing also included a request to implement a rider of approximately $38 million annually to recover vegetation management costs, including a return on capital investment. 

In May 2015, the WVPSC issued an order on the base rate case. Upon implementation of the order in May 2015, and consistent with the WVPSC authorized total revenue, annual base rates were authorized to be increased by $85 million based upon a 9.75% return on common equity. The order included a delayed billing of $22 million of the annual base rate increase to residential customers until July 2016. The order provided for carrying charges based upon a WACC rate for the $22 million annual delayed billing through June 2016, and stated recovery would be addressed in the next ENEC case scheduled for 2016. Additionally, the order included approval of (a) an initial vegetation management rider of $38 million annually, (b) revised deprecation rates, including recovery of plants to be retired and (c) the recovery of $77 million in previously recorded regulatory assets, which will predominantly be recovered over five years.

In June 2015, the WVPSC staff and intervenors filed motions for reconsideration and clarification related to various issues including recovery of lost revenues and the allowed carrying charge rate related to the delayed residential revenues. In July 2015, the WVPSC issued an order that denied all motions for reconsideration.

2015 Virginia Regulatory Asset Proceeding

In January 2015, the Virginia SCC initiated a separate proceeding to address the proper treatment of APCo’s authorized regulatory assets. As of June 30, 2015, APCo’s authorized regulatory assets under review in this proceeding are estimated to be $12 million. In February and March 2015, briefs related to this proceeding were filed by various parties. If any of these costs, or any additional costs that may be subject to review, are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

New Virginia Legislation Affecting Biennial Reviews

In February 2015, amendments to Virginia law governing the regulation of investor-owned electric utilities were enacted. Under the amended Virginia law, APCo’s existing generation and distribution base rates are frozen until after the Virginia SCC rules on APCo’s next biennial review, which APCo will file in March 2020 for the 2018 and 2019 test years. These amendments also preclude the Virginia SCC from performing biennial reviews of APCo’s earnings for the years 2014 through 2017. APCo's financial statements adequately address the impact of these amendments. The new law provides that APCo will absorb its Virginia jurisdictional share of incremental generation and distribution costs incurred during 2014 through 2017 that are associated with severe weather events and/or natural disasters and costs associated with potential impairments related to new carbon emission guidelines issued by the Federal EPA.

PSO Rate Matters

2015 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In July 2015, PSO filed a request with the OCC to increase annual revenues by $137 million to recover costs associated with its environmental compliance plan for the Federal EPA’s Regional Haze Rule and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and to recover investments and other costs that have increased since the last base rate case. The annual increase consists of (a) a base rate increase of $89 million, which includes $48 million in increased depreciation expense that reflects, among other things, recovery through June 2026 for Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4, (b) a rider or base rate increase of $44 million to recover costs for the environmental controls being installed on Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and the Comanche Plant and (c) a request to include environmental consumable costs in the FAC, estimated to be $4 million annually. The rate increase includes a proposed return on equity of 10.5% and is proposed to be effective in January 2016, except for the $44 million for environmental investments, which is proposed to be effective in March 2016, after the Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls go in service. The total estimated cost of the environmental controls to be installed at Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and the Comanche Plant is $219 million, excluding AFUDC. As of June 30, 2015, PSO has incurred costs of $140 million related to these projects, including AFUDC.

In addition, the filing also notified the OCC that future incremental purchased capacity and energy costs of an estimated $35 million will be incurred related to the environmental compliance plan, due to the closure of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 in April 2016, which would be recovered through the FAC. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 was $95 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.

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

2014 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In April 2015, the OCC issued an order that approved a non-unanimous stipulation agreement between PSO, the OCC staff and certain intervenors. The approved stipulation provides for no overall change to the transmission rider or to annual revenues, other than additional revenues through a separate rider related to advanced metering costs, and that the terms of the stipulation be effective November 2014. The advanced metering rider provides $24 million of revenues over 14 months beginning in November 2014 and increases to $27 million in 2016. The stipulation also included (a) new depreciation rates for advanced metering investments and existing meters, also effective November 2014, (b) a return on common equity of 9.85% to be used only in the formula to calculate AFUDC, factoring of customer receivables and for riders with an equity component and (c) recovery of regulatory assets for 2013 storms and regulatory case expenses. The advanced metering cost rider was implemented in November 2014.

I&M Rate Matters

Tanners Creek Plant

In October 2014, I&M filed an application with the IURC seeking approval of revised depreciation rates for Rockport Plant, Unit 1 and the Tanners Creek Plant. Upon retirement of the Tanners Creek Plant, I&M proposed that, for purposes of determining its depreciation rates, the net book value of the Tanners Creek Plant be recovered over the remaining life of the Rockport Plant. The new depreciation rates would result in a decrease in I&M's Indiana jurisdictional electric depreciation expense which I&M proposed to reduce customer rates through a credit rider. In May 2015, the IURC issued an order approving I&M's request for revised depreciation rates.

In May 2015, Tanners Creek Plant was retired. Upon retirement, $265 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet related to the net book value of Tanners Creek Plant and is being amortized over 29 years. An additional $38 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet for related asset retirement obligations and materials and supplies. These additional regulatory assets are currently not being amortized, pending regulatory approval.

Transmission, Distribution and Storage System Improvement Charge (TDSIC)

In October 2014, I&M filed petitions with the IURC for approval of a TDSIC Rider and approval of I&M’s seven-year TDSIC Plan, from 2015 through 2021, for eligible transmission, distribution and storage system improvements. The initial estimated cost of the capital improvements and associated operation and maintenance expenses included in the TDSIC Plan of $787 million, excluding AFUDC, would be updated annually. The TDSIC Plan included distribution investments specific to the Indiana jurisdiction. The TDSIC Rider would allow the periodic adjustment of I&M's rates to provide for timely recovery of 80% of approved TDSIC Plan costs. I&M would defer the remaining 20% of approved TDSIC Plan costs to be recovered in I&M's next general rate case. I&M did not seek a rate adjustment in this proceeding but sought approval of a TDSIC Rider rate adjustment mechanism for subsequent proceedings. In April 2015, I&M filed a notice with the IURC to seek approval of the proposed TDSIC Plan excluding $117 million of certain projects that were challenged in this proceeding. In May 2015, the IURC issued an order that denied I&M's TDSIC Plan and Rider. In May 2015, I&M filed a petition for reconsideration and/or rehearing with the IURC and in June 2015, filed a notice of appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Indiana Michigan Power Co [Member]

Rate Matters

RATE MATTERS

As discussed in the 2014 Annual Report, the Registrant Subsidiaries are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. The Rate Matters note within the 2014 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 2015 and updates the 2014 Annual Report.

Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval

	APCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Materials and Supplies Related to Retired Plants	$	7,588	$	—
Vegetation Management Program – West Virginia	—		19,089
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Asset Retirement Obligation Costs Related to Retired Plants	24,399		—
Demand Response Program Costs – Virginia	10,781		8,791
Amos Plant Transfer Costs – West Virginia	1,950		1,377
Storm Related Costs – West Virginia	—		65,206
Carbon Capture and Storage Product Validation Facility – West Virginia, FERC	—		13,264
IGCC Pre-Construction Costs – West Virginia, FERC	—		10,838
Expanded Net Energy Charge – Coal Inventory	—		3,421
Expanded Net Energy Charge – Construction Surcharge	—		2,307
Carbon Capture and Storage Commercial Scale Facility – West Virginia, FERC	—		1,287
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	168		168
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	44,886	$	125,748

	I&M
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Materials and Supplies Related to Retired Plants	$	11,722	$	—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Asset Retirement Obligation Costs Related to Retired Plants	27,079		—
Cook Plant Turbine	8,169		6,596
Stranded Costs on Abandoned Plants	3,897		3,897
Deferred Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project Costs – Michigan	2,721		1,222
Storm Related Costs – Indiana	857		1,074
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	547		860
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	54,992	$	13,649

	OPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Ormet Special Rate Recovery Mechanism	$	10,483	$	10,483
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	44		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	10,527	$	10,483

	PSO
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm Related Costs	$	—	$	16,614
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	—		1,079
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	—	$	17,693

	SWEPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Rate Case Expenses	$	—	$	8,126
Shipe Road Transmission Project	3,022		2,287
Asset Retirement Obligation	1,320		1,144
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	558		558
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	4,900	$	12,115

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

OPCo Rate Matters

Ohio Electric Security Plan Filings

2009 – 2011 ESP

The PUCO issued an order in March 2009 that modified and approved the ESP which established rates at the start of the April 2009 billing cycle through 2011. The order also provided a phase-in FAC, which was authorized to be recovered through a non-bypassable surcharge over the period 2012 through 2018.

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate proceeding which implemented a PIRR to recover deferred fuel costs in rates beginning September 2012. The PUCO ruled that carrying charges should be calculated without an offset for accumulated deferred income taxes and that a long-term debt rate should be applied when collections begin. In November 2012, OPCo appealed that PUCO order to the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming a long-term debt rate modified the previously adjudicated 2009 - 2011 ESP order, which granted a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) rate. In November 2012, the IEU filed an appeal of the PUCO decision that included the argument that carrying costs should be reduced due to an accumulated deferred income tax credit. In June 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision that reversed the PUCO order on the carrying cost rate issue and dismissed the appeal filed by the IEU. In June 2015, the IEU filed a motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court of Ohio related to the accumulated deferred income tax credit. If the Supreme Court of Ohio upholds its June 2015 order, it would remand the matter back to the PUCO for reinstatement of the WACC rate.

Management is unable to predict the outcome of the unresolved litigation discussed above. Depending on the ruling in this proceeding, it could impact future net income, cash flows and financial condition.

June 2012 – May 2015 ESP Including Capacity Charge

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order which adopted and modified a new ESP that established base generation rates through May 2015. This ruling was generally upheld in rehearing orders in January and March 2013.

In July 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate capacity proceeding which stated that OPCo must charge CRES providers the RPM price and authorized OPCo to defer a portion of its incurred capacity costs not recovered from CRES providers up to $188.88/MW day.  The OPCo RPM price collected from CRES providers, which includes reserve margins, was approximately $34/MW day through May 2014 and $150/MW day from June 2014 through May 2015.  In December 2012, various parties filed notices of appeal of the capacity costs decision with the Supreme Court of Ohio.  

As part of the August 2012 ESP order, the PUCO established a non-bypassable RSR, effective September 2012.  The RSR was collected from customers at $3.50/MWh through May 2014 and at $4.00/MWh for the period June 2014 through May 2015, with $1.00/MWh applied to the recovery of deferred capacity costs. In July 2014, OPCo submitted a separate application to continue the RSR to collect the unrecovered portion of the deferred capacity costs at the rate of $4.00/MWh until the balance of the capacity deferrals has been collected. In April 2015, the PUCO issued an order approving the application to continue the RSR, with modifications. The order included approval to continue the collection of deferred capacity costs at a rate of $4.00/MWh beginning June 1, 2015 for approximately 32 months, with carrying costs at a long-term cost of debt rate. Additionally, the order stated that an audit will be conducted of the May 31, 2015 capacity deferral balance, which was $444 million. In May 2015, the PUCO granted intervenors requests for rehearing. As of June 30, 2015, OPCo's incurred deferred capacity costs balance of $432 million, including debt carrying costs, was recorded in Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet.

In 2013, the PUCO issued its Orders on Rehearing for the ESP which generally upheld its August 2012 order. The PUCO clarified that a final reconciliation of revenues and expenses would be permitted for any over- or under-recovery on several riders including fuel. In addition, the PUCO addressed certain issues around the energy auctions while other SSO issues related to the energy auctions were deferred to a separate docket related to the competitive bid process (CBP). In 2013, OPCo and various intervenors filed appeals with the Supreme Court of Ohio challenging portions of the PUCO’s ESP order. Oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Ohio were held in May 2015.

In November 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo’s CBP with modifications. As ordered, in 2014, OPCo conducted multiple energy-only auctions for a total of 100% of the SSO load with delivery beginning April 2014 through May 2015. As provided for in the June 2015 - May 2018 ESP, for delivery starting in June 2015, OPCo now conducts energy and capacity auctions for its entire SSO load. The PUCO also approved the unbundling of the FAC into fixed and energy-related components and an intervenor proposal to blend the $188.88/MW day capacity price in proportion to the percentage of energy planned to be auctioned. Additionally, the PUCO ordered that intervenor concerns related to the recovery of the fixed fuel costs through potentially both the FAC and the approved capacity charges be addressed in subsequent FAC proceedings.

In January 2014, the PUCO denied all rehearing requests and agreed to issue a supplemental request for an independent auditor in the 2012 - 2013 FAC proceeding to separately examine the recovery of the fixed fuel costs, including OVEC. In March 2014, the PUCO approved OPCo’s request to implement riders related to the unbundling of the FAC. In October 2014, the independent auditor, selected by the PUCO, filed its report for the period August 2012 through May 2015 with the PUCO. If the PUCO ultimately concludes that a portion of the fixed fuel costs are also recovered through OPCo's $188.88/MW day capacity charge, the independent auditor has recommended a methodology for calculating a refund of a portion of certain fixed fuel costs. The retail share of these fixed fuel costs is approximately $90 million annually. A hearing related to this matter has not been scheduled. Management believes that no over-recovery of costs has occurred and disagrees with the findings in the audit report.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect all components of its ESP rates, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

June 2015 - May 2018 ESP

In December 2013, OPCo filed an application with the PUCO to approve an ESP that included proposed rate adjustments and the continuation and modification of certain existing riders, including the Distribution Investment Rider (DIR), effective June 2015 through May 2018. The proposal included a return on common equity of 10.65% on capital costs for certain riders. The proposal also included a purchased power agreement (PPA) rider that would allow retail customers to receive a rate stabilizing charge or credit by hedging market-based prices with a cost-based PPA. The PPA would initially be based upon the OVEC contractual entitlement and could, upon further approval, be expanded to include other contracts involving other Ohio legacy generation assets. In October 2014, OPCo filed a separate application with the PUCO to propose a new extended PPA with AGR for 2,671 MW for inclusion in the PPA rider.

In February 2015, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo's ESP application, subject to certain modifications, with a return on common equity of 10.2% on capital costs for certain riders. The order included (a) approval of the DIR with modified rate caps established by the PUCO, (b) authorization to establish a zero rate rider for OPCo's proposed PPA, (c) the option for OPCo to reapply in a future proceeding with a more detailed PPA proposal and (d) a directive to continue to pursue the transfer of the OVEC contractual entitlement to AGR or to otherwise divest of its interest in OVEC. In May 2015, on rehearing, the PUCO issued an order that increased the DIR rate caps and deferred ruling on all requests for rehearing related to the establishment of the PPA rider. In June 2015, OPCo and various intervenors filed applications for rehearing with the PUCO related to the May 2015 order on rehearing. In July 2015, the PUCO granted the requests for rehearing.

In May 2015, OPCo filed an amended PPA application between OPCo and AGR that (a) included OPCo's OVEC contractual entitlement, (b) addressed the PPA requirements set forth in the PUCO's February 2015 order, (c) updated supporting testimony to reflect a current analysis of the PPA proposal and (d) continued to include the 2,671 MW to be available for capacity, energy and ancillary services, produced by AGR over the lives of the respective generating units.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect all components of its ESP rates, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Significantly Excessive Earnings Test Filings

In January 2011, the PUCO issued an order on the 2009 SEET filing. The order gave consideration for a future commitment to invest $20 million to support the development of a large solar farm. In January 2013, the PUCO found there was not a need for the large solar farm. The PUCO noted that OPCo remains obligated to spend $20 million on this solar project or another project. In September 2013, a proposed second phase of OPCo’s gridSMART^® program was filed with the PUCO which included a proposed project to satisfy this PUCO directive. A decision from the PUCO is pending.

In June 2015, OPCo filed its 2014 SEET filing with the PUCO. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of 2014 SEET requirements.

Corporate Separation

In October 2012, the PUCO issued an order which approved the corporate separation of OPCo’s generation assets including the transfer of OPCo’s generation assets and associated generation liabilities at net book value to AGR. In June 2013, the IEU filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming the PUCO order approving the corporate separation was unlawful. A decision from the Supreme Court of Ohio is pending. In December 2013, corporate separation of OPCo’s generation assets was completed. If any part of the PUCO order is overturned, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2009 Fuel Adjustment Clause Audit

In January 2012, the PUCO issued an order in OPCo’s 2009 FAC that the remaining $65 million in proceeds from a 2008 coal contract settlement agreement be applied against OPCo’s under-recovered fuel balance. In April 2012, on rehearing, the PUCO ordered that the settlement credit only needed to reflect the Ohio retail jurisdictional share of the gain not already flowed through the FAC with carrying charges. As a result, OPCo recorded a $30 million net favorable adjustment on the statement of income in 2012. The January 2012 PUCO order also stated that a consultant should be hired to review the coal reserve valuation and recommend whether any additional value should benefit ratepayers.

In September 2014, the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the PUCO order on appeal. A review of the coal reserve valuation by an outside consultant has not been initiated by the PUCO. If the PUCO ultimately determines that additional amounts should benefit ratepayers as a result of the consultant’s review of the coal reserve valuation, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2012 and 2013 Fuel Adjustment Clause Audits

In May 2014, the PUCO-selected outside consultant provided its final report related to its 2012 and 2013 FAC audit which included certain unfavorable recommendations related to the FAC recovery for 2012 and 2013. These recommendations are opposed by OPCo. In addition, the PUCO will consider the results of the final audit of the recovery of fixed fuel costs that was issued in October 2014. See the "June 2012 - May 2015 ESP Including Capacity Charge" section above. If the PUCO orders a reduction to the FAC deferral or a refund to customers, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Ormet

Ormet, a large aluminum company, had a contract to purchase power from OPCo through 2018. In 2013, Ormet filed for bankruptcy and subsequently shut down operations. In March 2014, the PUCO issued an order in OPCo’s Economic Development Rider (EDR) filing allowing OPCo to include $39 million of Ormet-related foregone revenues in the EDR effective April 2014. The order stated that if the stipulation agreement between OPCo and Ormet is subsequently adopted by the PUCO, OPCo could file an application to modify the EDR rate for the remainder of the period requesting recovery of the remaining $10 million of Ormet deferrals which, as of June 30, 2015, is recorded in Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet. In April 2014, an intervenor filed testimony objecting to $5 million of the remaining foregone revenues. A hearing at the PUCO related to the stipulation agreement was held in May 2014.

In addition, in the 2009 - 2011 ESP proceeding, intervenors requested that OPCo be required to refund the Ormet-related revenues under a previous interim arrangement (effective from January 2009 through September 2009) and requested that the PUCO prevent OPCo from collecting Ormet-related revenues in the future. Through September 2009, the last month of the interim arrangement, OPCo had $64 million of deferred FAC costs related to the interim arrangement, excluding $2 million of unrecognized equity carrying costs. The PUCO did not take any action on this request. The intervenors raised this issue again in response to OPCo’s November 2009 filing to approve recovery of the deferral under the interim agreement.

To the extent amounts discussed above are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

SWEPCo Rate Matters

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. Additionally, the PUCT deferred consideration of the requested increase in depreciation expense related to the change in the 2016 retirement date of the Welsh Plant, Unit 2. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was $83 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.

Upon rehearing in January 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, in the fourth quarter of 2013, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of previously recorded regulatory disallowances. The resulting annual base rate increase is approximately $52 million. In March 2014, the PUCT issued an order related to the January 2014 PUCT ruling and in April 2014, this order became final. In May 2014, intervenors filed appeals of that order with the Texas District Court. In June 2014, SWEPCo intervened in those appeals and filed initial responses.

If certain parts of the PUCT order are overturned or if SWEPCo cannot ultimately recover its Texas jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant investment, including AFUDC, or its retirement-related costs and potential fuel or replacement power disallowances related to Welsh Plant, Unit 2, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In 2012, SWEPCo initiated a proceeding to establish new formula base rates in Louisiana, including recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share (approximately 29%) of the Turk Plant.  In February 2013, a settlement was filed and approved by the LPSC.  The settlement increased SWEPCo's Louisiana total rates by approximately $2 million annually, effective March 2013, which consisted of an increase in base rates of approximately $85 million annually offset by a decrease in fuel and other rates of approximately $83 million annually.  The March 2013 base rates are based on a 10% return on common equity and cost recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant and Stall Unit. The rates are subject to refund based on the staff review of the cost of service and the prudency review of the Turk Plant. The settlement also provided that the LPSC review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo recover non-fuel Turk Plant costs and a full weighted-average cost of capital return on the prudently incurred Turk Plant investment in jurisdictional rate base, effective January 2013. In December 2014, the LPSC approved a settlement agreement related to the staff review of the cost of service. The settlement agreement reduced the requested revenue increase by $3 million, primarily due to the timing of both the allowed recovery of certain existing regulatory assets and the establishment of a regulatory asset for certain previously expensed costs. If the LPSC orders refunds based upon the pending prudence review of the Turk Plant investment, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2014 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In April 2014, SWEPCo filed its annual formula rate plan for test year 2013 with the LPSC.  The filing included a $5 million annual increase, which was effective August 2014.  SWEPCo also proposed to increase rates by an additional $15 million annually, effective January 2015, for a total annual increase of $20 million. This additional increase reflects the cost of incremental generation to be used to serve Louisiana customers in 2015 due to the expiration of a purchase power agreement attributable to Louisiana customers.  In December 2014, the LPSC approved a partial settlement agreement that included the implementation of the $15 million annual increase in rates effective January 2015. These increases are subject to LPSC staff review and are subject to refund.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2015 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In April 2015, SWEPCo filed its formula rate plan for test year 2014 with the LPSC.  The filing included a $14 million annual increase, which will be effective August 2015.  This increase is subject to LPSC staff review and is subject to refund.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 – Environmental Projects

To comply with pending Federal EPA regulations, SWEPCo is currently constructing environmental control projects to meet mercury and air toxics standards for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 at a cost of approximately $410 million, excluding AFUDC.  Management currently estimates that the total environmental projects to be completed through 2020 for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 will cost approximately $600 million, excluding AFUDC.  As of June 30, 2015, SWEPCo has incurred costs of $256 million, including AFUDC, and has remaining contractual construction obligations of $89 million related to these projects.  SWEPCo will seek recovery of these project costs from customers through filings at the state commissions and the FERC. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $484 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. 

APCo Rate Matters

2014 West Virginia Base Rate Case

In June 2014, APCo filed a request with the WVPSC to increase annual base rates by $156 million, based upon a 10.62% return on common equity, to be effective in the second quarter of 2015. The filing included a request to increase generation depreciation rates primarily due to the increase in plant investment and changes in the expected service lives of various generating units. The filing also requested recovery of $77 million in regulatory assets over five years related to 2012 West Virginia storm costs, IGCC and other deferred costs. In addition to the base rate request, the filing also included a request to implement a rider of approximately $38 million annually to recover vegetation management costs, including a return on capital investment. 

In May 2015, the WVPSC issued an order on the base rate case. Upon implementation of the order in May 2015, and consistent with the WVPSC authorized total revenue, annual base rates were authorized to be increased by $85 million based upon a 9.75% return on common equity. The order included a delayed billing of $22 million of the annual base rate increase to residential customers until July 2016. The order provided for carrying charges based upon a WACC rate for the $22 million annual delayed billing through June 2016, and stated recovery would be addressed in the next ENEC case scheduled for 2016. Additionally, the order included approval of (a) an initial vegetation management rider of $38 million annually, (b) revised deprecation rates, including recovery of plants to be retired and (c) the recovery of $77 million in previously recorded regulatory assets, which will predominantly be recovered over five years.

In June 2015, the WVPSC staff and intervenors filed motions for reconsideration and clarification related to various issues including recovery of lost revenues and the allowed carrying charge rate related to the delayed residential revenues. In July 2015, the WVPSC issued an order that denied all motions for reconsideration.

2015 Virginia Regulatory Asset Proceeding

In January 2015, the Virginia SCC initiated a separate proceeding to address the proper treatment of APCo’s authorized regulatory assets. As of June 30, 2015, APCo’s authorized regulatory assets under review in this proceeding are estimated to be $12 million. In February and March 2015, briefs related to this proceeding were filed by various parties. If any of these costs, or any additional costs that may be subject to review, are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

New Virginia Legislation Affecting Biennial Reviews

In February 2015, amendments to Virginia law governing the regulation of investor-owned electric utilities were enacted. Under the amended Virginia law, APCo’s existing generation and distribution base rates are frozen until after the Virginia SCC rules on APCo’s next biennial review, which APCo will file in March 2020 for the 2018 and 2019 test years. These amendments also preclude the Virginia SCC from performing biennial reviews of APCo’s earnings for the years 2014 through 2017. APCo's financial statements adequately address the impact of these amendments. The new law provides that APCo will absorb its Virginia jurisdictional share of incremental generation and distribution costs incurred during 2014 through 2017 that are associated with severe weather events and/or natural disasters and costs associated with potential impairments related to new carbon emission guidelines issued by the Federal EPA.

PSO Rate Matters

2015 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In July 2015, PSO filed a request with the OCC to increase annual revenues by $137 million to recover costs associated with its environmental compliance plan for the Federal EPA’s Regional Haze Rule and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and to recover investments and other costs that have increased since the last base rate case. The annual increase consists of (a) a base rate increase of $89 million, which includes $48 million in increased depreciation expense that reflects, among other things, recovery through June 2026 for Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4, (b) a rider or base rate increase of $44 million to recover costs for the environmental controls being installed on Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and the Comanche Plant and (c) a request to include environmental consumable costs in the FAC, estimated to be $4 million annually. The rate increase includes a proposed return on equity of 10.5% and is proposed to be effective in January 2016, except for the $44 million for environmental investments, which is proposed to be effective in March 2016, after the Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls go in service. The total estimated cost of the environmental controls to be installed at Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and the Comanche Plant is $219 million, excluding AFUDC. As of June 30, 2015, PSO has incurred costs of $140 million related to these projects, including AFUDC.

In addition, the filing also notified the OCC that future incremental purchased capacity and energy costs of an estimated $35 million will be incurred related to the environmental compliance plan, due to the closure of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 in April 2016, which would be recovered through the FAC. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 was $95 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.

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

2014 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In April 2015, the OCC issued an order that approved a non-unanimous stipulation agreement between PSO, the OCC staff and certain intervenors. The approved stipulation provides for no overall change to the transmission rider or to annual revenues, other than additional revenues through a separate rider related to advanced metering costs, and that the terms of the stipulation be effective November 2014. The advanced metering rider provides $24 million of revenues over 14 months beginning in November 2014 and increases to $27 million in 2016. The stipulation also included (a) new depreciation rates for advanced metering investments and existing meters, also effective November 2014, (b) a return on common equity of 9.85% to be used only in the formula to calculate AFUDC, factoring of customer receivables and for riders with an equity component and (c) recovery of regulatory assets for 2013 storms and regulatory case expenses. The advanced metering cost rider was implemented in November 2014.

I&M Rate Matters

Tanners Creek Plant

In October 2014, I&M filed an application with the IURC seeking approval of revised depreciation rates for Rockport Plant, Unit 1 and the Tanners Creek Plant. Upon retirement of the Tanners Creek Plant, I&M proposed that, for purposes of determining its depreciation rates, the net book value of the Tanners Creek Plant be recovered over the remaining life of the Rockport Plant. The new depreciation rates would result in a decrease in I&M's Indiana jurisdictional electric depreciation expense which I&M proposed to reduce customer rates through a credit rider. In May 2015, the IURC issued an order approving I&M's request for revised depreciation rates.

In May 2015, Tanners Creek Plant was retired. Upon retirement, $265 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet related to the net book value of Tanners Creek Plant and is being amortized over 29 years. An additional $38 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet for related asset retirement obligations and materials and supplies. These additional regulatory assets are currently not being amortized, pending regulatory approval.

Transmission, Distribution and Storage System Improvement Charge (TDSIC)

In October 2014, I&M filed petitions with the IURC for approval of a TDSIC Rider and approval of I&M’s seven-year TDSIC Plan, from 2015 through 2021, for eligible transmission, distribution and storage system improvements. The initial estimated cost of the capital improvements and associated operation and maintenance expenses included in the TDSIC Plan of $787 million, excluding AFUDC, would be updated annually. The TDSIC Plan included distribution investments specific to the Indiana jurisdiction. The TDSIC Rider would allow the periodic adjustment of I&M's rates to provide for timely recovery of 80% of approved TDSIC Plan costs. I&M would defer the remaining 20% of approved TDSIC Plan costs to be recovered in I&M's next general rate case. I&M did not seek a rate adjustment in this proceeding but sought approval of a TDSIC Rider rate adjustment mechanism for subsequent proceedings. In April 2015, I&M filed a notice with the IURC to seek approval of the proposed TDSIC Plan excluding $117 million of certain projects that were challenged in this proceeding. In May 2015, the IURC issued an order that denied I&M's TDSIC Plan and Rider. In May 2015, I&M filed a petition for reconsideration and/or rehearing with the IURC and in June 2015, filed a notice of appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Ohio Power Co [Member]

Rate Matters

RATE MATTERS

As discussed in the 2014 Annual Report, the Registrant Subsidiaries are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. The Rate Matters note within the 2014 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 2015 and updates the 2014 Annual Report.

Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval

	APCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Materials and Supplies Related to Retired Plants	$	7,588	$	—
Vegetation Management Program – West Virginia	—		19,089
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Asset Retirement Obligation Costs Related to Retired Plants	24,399		—
Demand Response Program Costs – Virginia	10,781		8,791
Amos Plant Transfer Costs – West Virginia	1,950		1,377
Storm Related Costs – West Virginia	—		65,206
Carbon Capture and Storage Product Validation Facility – West Virginia, FERC	—		13,264
IGCC Pre-Construction Costs – West Virginia, FERC	—		10,838
Expanded Net Energy Charge – Coal Inventory	—		3,421
Expanded Net Energy Charge – Construction Surcharge	—		2,307
Carbon Capture and Storage Commercial Scale Facility – West Virginia, FERC	—		1,287
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	168		168
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	44,886	$	125,748

	I&M
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Materials and Supplies Related to Retired Plants	$	11,722	$	—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Asset Retirement Obligation Costs Related to Retired Plants	27,079		—
Cook Plant Turbine	8,169		6,596
Stranded Costs on Abandoned Plants	3,897		3,897
Deferred Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project Costs – Michigan	2,721		1,222
Storm Related Costs – Indiana	857		1,074
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	547		860
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	54,992	$	13,649

	OPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Ormet Special Rate Recovery Mechanism	$	10,483	$	10,483
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	44		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	10,527	$	10,483

	PSO
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm Related Costs	$	—	$	16,614
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	—		1,079
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	—	$	17,693

	SWEPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Rate Case Expenses	$	—	$	8,126
Shipe Road Transmission Project	3,022		2,287
Asset Retirement Obligation	1,320		1,144
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	558		558
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	4,900	$	12,115

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

OPCo Rate Matters

Ohio Electric Security Plan Filings

2009 – 2011 ESP

The PUCO issued an order in March 2009 that modified and approved the ESP which established rates at the start of the April 2009 billing cycle through 2011. The order also provided a phase-in FAC, which was authorized to be recovered through a non-bypassable surcharge over the period 2012 through 2018.

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate proceeding which implemented a PIRR to recover deferred fuel costs in rates beginning September 2012. The PUCO ruled that carrying charges should be calculated without an offset for accumulated deferred income taxes and that a long-term debt rate should be applied when collections begin. In November 2012, OPCo appealed that PUCO order to the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming a long-term debt rate modified the previously adjudicated 2009 - 2011 ESP order, which granted a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) rate. In November 2012, the IEU filed an appeal of the PUCO decision that included the argument that carrying costs should be reduced due to an accumulated deferred income tax credit. In June 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision that reversed the PUCO order on the carrying cost rate issue and dismissed the appeal filed by the IEU. In June 2015, the IEU filed a motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court of Ohio related to the accumulated deferred income tax credit. If the Supreme Court of Ohio upholds its June 2015 order, it would remand the matter back to the PUCO for reinstatement of the WACC rate.

Management is unable to predict the outcome of the unresolved litigation discussed above. Depending on the ruling in this proceeding, it could impact future net income, cash flows and financial condition.

June 2012 – May 2015 ESP Including Capacity Charge

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order which adopted and modified a new ESP that established base generation rates through May 2015. This ruling was generally upheld in rehearing orders in January and March 2013.

In July 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate capacity proceeding which stated that OPCo must charge CRES providers the RPM price and authorized OPCo to defer a portion of its incurred capacity costs not recovered from CRES providers up to $188.88/MW day.  The OPCo RPM price collected from CRES providers, which includes reserve margins, was approximately $34/MW day through May 2014 and $150/MW day from June 2014 through May 2015.  In December 2012, various parties filed notices of appeal of the capacity costs decision with the Supreme Court of Ohio.  

As part of the August 2012 ESP order, the PUCO established a non-bypassable RSR, effective September 2012.  The RSR was collected from customers at $3.50/MWh through May 2014 and at $4.00/MWh for the period June 2014 through May 2015, with $1.00/MWh applied to the recovery of deferred capacity costs. In July 2014, OPCo submitted a separate application to continue the RSR to collect the unrecovered portion of the deferred capacity costs at the rate of $4.00/MWh until the balance of the capacity deferrals has been collected. In April 2015, the PUCO issued an order approving the application to continue the RSR, with modifications. The order included approval to continue the collection of deferred capacity costs at a rate of $4.00/MWh beginning June 1, 2015 for approximately 32 months, with carrying costs at a long-term cost of debt rate. Additionally, the order stated that an audit will be conducted of the May 31, 2015 capacity deferral balance, which was $444 million. In May 2015, the PUCO granted intervenors requests for rehearing. As of June 30, 2015, OPCo's incurred deferred capacity costs balance of $432 million, including debt carrying costs, was recorded in Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet.

In 2013, the PUCO issued its Orders on Rehearing for the ESP which generally upheld its August 2012 order. The PUCO clarified that a final reconciliation of revenues and expenses would be permitted for any over- or under-recovery on several riders including fuel. In addition, the PUCO addressed certain issues around the energy auctions while other SSO issues related to the energy auctions were deferred to a separate docket related to the competitive bid process (CBP). In 2013, OPCo and various intervenors filed appeals with the Supreme Court of Ohio challenging portions of the PUCO’s ESP order. Oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Ohio were held in May 2015.

In November 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo’s CBP with modifications. As ordered, in 2014, OPCo conducted multiple energy-only auctions for a total of 100% of the SSO load with delivery beginning April 2014 through May 2015. As provided for in the June 2015 - May 2018 ESP, for delivery starting in June 2015, OPCo now conducts energy and capacity auctions for its entire SSO load. The PUCO also approved the unbundling of the FAC into fixed and energy-related components and an intervenor proposal to blend the $188.88/MW day capacity price in proportion to the percentage of energy planned to be auctioned. Additionally, the PUCO ordered that intervenor concerns related to the recovery of the fixed fuel costs through potentially both the FAC and the approved capacity charges be addressed in subsequent FAC proceedings.

In January 2014, the PUCO denied all rehearing requests and agreed to issue a supplemental request for an independent auditor in the 2012 - 2013 FAC proceeding to separately examine the recovery of the fixed fuel costs, including OVEC. In March 2014, the PUCO approved OPCo’s request to implement riders related to the unbundling of the FAC. In October 2014, the independent auditor, selected by the PUCO, filed its report for the period August 2012 through May 2015 with the PUCO. If the PUCO ultimately concludes that a portion of the fixed fuel costs are also recovered through OPCo's $188.88/MW day capacity charge, the independent auditor has recommended a methodology for calculating a refund of a portion of certain fixed fuel costs. The retail share of these fixed fuel costs is approximately $90 million annually. A hearing related to this matter has not been scheduled. Management believes that no over-recovery of costs has occurred and disagrees with the findings in the audit report.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect all components of its ESP rates, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

June 2015 - May 2018 ESP

In December 2013, OPCo filed an application with the PUCO to approve an ESP that included proposed rate adjustments and the continuation and modification of certain existing riders, including the Distribution Investment Rider (DIR), effective June 2015 through May 2018. The proposal included a return on common equity of 10.65% on capital costs for certain riders. The proposal also included a purchased power agreement (PPA) rider that would allow retail customers to receive a rate stabilizing charge or credit by hedging market-based prices with a cost-based PPA. The PPA would initially be based upon the OVEC contractual entitlement and could, upon further approval, be expanded to include other contracts involving other Ohio legacy generation assets. In October 2014, OPCo filed a separate application with the PUCO to propose a new extended PPA with AGR for 2,671 MW for inclusion in the PPA rider.

In February 2015, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo's ESP application, subject to certain modifications, with a return on common equity of 10.2% on capital costs for certain riders. The order included (a) approval of the DIR with modified rate caps established by the PUCO, (b) authorization to establish a zero rate rider for OPCo's proposed PPA, (c) the option for OPCo to reapply in a future proceeding with a more detailed PPA proposal and (d) a directive to continue to pursue the transfer of the OVEC contractual entitlement to AGR or to otherwise divest of its interest in OVEC. In May 2015, on rehearing, the PUCO issued an order that increased the DIR rate caps and deferred ruling on all requests for rehearing related to the establishment of the PPA rider. In June 2015, OPCo and various intervenors filed applications for rehearing with the PUCO related to the May 2015 order on rehearing. In July 2015, the PUCO granted the requests for rehearing.

In May 2015, OPCo filed an amended PPA application between OPCo and AGR that (a) included OPCo's OVEC contractual entitlement, (b) addressed the PPA requirements set forth in the PUCO's February 2015 order, (c) updated supporting testimony to reflect a current analysis of the PPA proposal and (d) continued to include the 2,671 MW to be available for capacity, energy and ancillary services, produced by AGR over the lives of the respective generating units.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect all components of its ESP rates, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Significantly Excessive Earnings Test Filings

In January 2011, the PUCO issued an order on the 2009 SEET filing. The order gave consideration for a future commitment to invest $20 million to support the development of a large solar farm. In January 2013, the PUCO found there was not a need for the large solar farm. The PUCO noted that OPCo remains obligated to spend $20 million on this solar project or another project. In September 2013, a proposed second phase of OPCo’s gridSMART^® program was filed with the PUCO which included a proposed project to satisfy this PUCO directive. A decision from the PUCO is pending.

In June 2015, OPCo filed its 2014 SEET filing with the PUCO. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of 2014 SEET requirements.

Corporate Separation

In October 2012, the PUCO issued an order which approved the corporate separation of OPCo’s generation assets including the transfer of OPCo’s generation assets and associated generation liabilities at net book value to AGR. In June 2013, the IEU filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming the PUCO order approving the corporate separation was unlawful. A decision from the Supreme Court of Ohio is pending. In December 2013, corporate separation of OPCo’s generation assets was completed. If any part of the PUCO order is overturned, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2009 Fuel Adjustment Clause Audit

In January 2012, the PUCO issued an order in OPCo’s 2009 FAC that the remaining $65 million in proceeds from a 2008 coal contract settlement agreement be applied against OPCo’s under-recovered fuel balance. In April 2012, on rehearing, the PUCO ordered that the settlement credit only needed to reflect the Ohio retail jurisdictional share of the gain not already flowed through the FAC with carrying charges. As a result, OPCo recorded a $30 million net favorable adjustment on the statement of income in 2012. The January 2012 PUCO order also stated that a consultant should be hired to review the coal reserve valuation and recommend whether any additional value should benefit ratepayers.

In September 2014, the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the PUCO order on appeal. A review of the coal reserve valuation by an outside consultant has not been initiated by the PUCO. If the PUCO ultimately determines that additional amounts should benefit ratepayers as a result of the consultant’s review of the coal reserve valuation, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2012 and 2013 Fuel Adjustment Clause Audits

In May 2014, the PUCO-selected outside consultant provided its final report related to its 2012 and 2013 FAC audit which included certain unfavorable recommendations related to the FAC recovery for 2012 and 2013. These recommendations are opposed by OPCo. In addition, the PUCO will consider the results of the final audit of the recovery of fixed fuel costs that was issued in October 2014. See the "June 2012 - May 2015 ESP Including Capacity Charge" section above. If the PUCO orders a reduction to the FAC deferral or a refund to customers, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Ormet

Ormet, a large aluminum company, had a contract to purchase power from OPCo through 2018. In 2013, Ormet filed for bankruptcy and subsequently shut down operations. In March 2014, the PUCO issued an order in OPCo’s Economic Development Rider (EDR) filing allowing OPCo to include $39 million of Ormet-related foregone revenues in the EDR effective April 2014. The order stated that if the stipulation agreement between OPCo and Ormet is subsequently adopted by the PUCO, OPCo could file an application to modify the EDR rate for the remainder of the period requesting recovery of the remaining $10 million of Ormet deferrals which, as of June 30, 2015, is recorded in Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet. In April 2014, an intervenor filed testimony objecting to $5 million of the remaining foregone revenues. A hearing at the PUCO related to the stipulation agreement was held in May 2014.

In addition, in the 2009 - 2011 ESP proceeding, intervenors requested that OPCo be required to refund the Ormet-related revenues under a previous interim arrangement (effective from January 2009 through September 2009) and requested that the PUCO prevent OPCo from collecting Ormet-related revenues in the future. Through September 2009, the last month of the interim arrangement, OPCo had $64 million of deferred FAC costs related to the interim arrangement, excluding $2 million of unrecognized equity carrying costs. The PUCO did not take any action on this request. The intervenors raised this issue again in response to OPCo’s November 2009 filing to approve recovery of the deferral under the interim agreement.

To the extent amounts discussed above are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

SWEPCo Rate Matters

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. Additionally, the PUCT deferred consideration of the requested increase in depreciation expense related to the change in the 2016 retirement date of the Welsh Plant, Unit 2. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was $83 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.

Upon rehearing in January 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, in the fourth quarter of 2013, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of previously recorded regulatory disallowances. The resulting annual base rate increase is approximately $52 million. In March 2014, the PUCT issued an order related to the January 2014 PUCT ruling and in April 2014, this order became final. In May 2014, intervenors filed appeals of that order with the Texas District Court. In June 2014, SWEPCo intervened in those appeals and filed initial responses.

If certain parts of the PUCT order are overturned or if SWEPCo cannot ultimately recover its Texas jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant investment, including AFUDC, or its retirement-related costs and potential fuel or replacement power disallowances related to Welsh Plant, Unit 2, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In 2012, SWEPCo initiated a proceeding to establish new formula base rates in Louisiana, including recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share (approximately 29%) of the Turk Plant.  In February 2013, a settlement was filed and approved by the LPSC.  The settlement increased SWEPCo's Louisiana total rates by approximately $2 million annually, effective March 2013, which consisted of an increase in base rates of approximately $85 million annually offset by a decrease in fuel and other rates of approximately $83 million annually.  The March 2013 base rates are based on a 10% return on common equity and cost recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant and Stall Unit. The rates are subject to refund based on the staff review of the cost of service and the prudency review of the Turk Plant. The settlement also provided that the LPSC review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo recover non-fuel Turk Plant costs and a full weighted-average cost of capital return on the prudently incurred Turk Plant investment in jurisdictional rate base, effective January 2013. In December 2014, the LPSC approved a settlement agreement related to the staff review of the cost of service. The settlement agreement reduced the requested revenue increase by $3 million, primarily due to the timing of both the allowed recovery of certain existing regulatory assets and the establishment of a regulatory asset for certain previously expensed costs. If the LPSC orders refunds based upon the pending prudence review of the Turk Plant investment, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2014 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In April 2014, SWEPCo filed its annual formula rate plan for test year 2013 with the LPSC.  The filing included a $5 million annual increase, which was effective August 2014.  SWEPCo also proposed to increase rates by an additional $15 million annually, effective January 2015, for a total annual increase of $20 million. This additional increase reflects the cost of incremental generation to be used to serve Louisiana customers in 2015 due to the expiration of a purchase power agreement attributable to Louisiana customers.  In December 2014, the LPSC approved a partial settlement agreement that included the implementation of the $15 million annual increase in rates effective January 2015. These increases are subject to LPSC staff review and are subject to refund.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2015 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In April 2015, SWEPCo filed its formula rate plan for test year 2014 with the LPSC.  The filing included a $14 million annual increase, which will be effective August 2015.  This increase is subject to LPSC staff review and is subject to refund.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 – Environmental Projects

To comply with pending Federal EPA regulations, SWEPCo is currently constructing environmental control projects to meet mercury and air toxics standards for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 at a cost of approximately $410 million, excluding AFUDC.  Management currently estimates that the total environmental projects to be completed through 2020 for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 will cost approximately $600 million, excluding AFUDC.  As of June 30, 2015, SWEPCo has incurred costs of $256 million, including AFUDC, and has remaining contractual construction obligations of $89 million related to these projects.  SWEPCo will seek recovery of these project costs from customers through filings at the state commissions and the FERC. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $484 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. 

APCo Rate Matters

2014 West Virginia Base Rate Case

In June 2014, APCo filed a request with the WVPSC to increase annual base rates by $156 million, based upon a 10.62% return on common equity, to be effective in the second quarter of 2015. The filing included a request to increase generation depreciation rates primarily due to the increase in plant investment and changes in the expected service lives of various generating units. The filing also requested recovery of $77 million in regulatory assets over five years related to 2012 West Virginia storm costs, IGCC and other deferred costs. In addition to the base rate request, the filing also included a request to implement a rider of approximately $38 million annually to recover vegetation management costs, including a return on capital investment. 

In May 2015, the WVPSC issued an order on the base rate case. Upon implementation of the order in May 2015, and consistent with the WVPSC authorized total revenue, annual base rates were authorized to be increased by $85 million based upon a 9.75% return on common equity. The order included a delayed billing of $22 million of the annual base rate increase to residential customers until July 2016. The order provided for carrying charges based upon a WACC rate for the $22 million annual delayed billing through June 2016, and stated recovery would be addressed in the next ENEC case scheduled for 2016. Additionally, the order included approval of (a) an initial vegetation management rider of $38 million annually, (b) revised deprecation rates, including recovery of plants to be retired and (c) the recovery of $77 million in previously recorded regulatory assets, which will predominantly be recovered over five years.

In June 2015, the WVPSC staff and intervenors filed motions for reconsideration and clarification related to various issues including recovery of lost revenues and the allowed carrying charge rate related to the delayed residential revenues. In July 2015, the WVPSC issued an order that denied all motions for reconsideration.

2015 Virginia Regulatory Asset Proceeding

In January 2015, the Virginia SCC initiated a separate proceeding to address the proper treatment of APCo’s authorized regulatory assets. As of June 30, 2015, APCo’s authorized regulatory assets under review in this proceeding are estimated to be $12 million. In February and March 2015, briefs related to this proceeding were filed by various parties. If any of these costs, or any additional costs that may be subject to review, are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

New Virginia Legislation Affecting Biennial Reviews

In February 2015, amendments to Virginia law governing the regulation of investor-owned electric utilities were enacted. Under the amended Virginia law, APCo’s existing generation and distribution base rates are frozen until after the Virginia SCC rules on APCo’s next biennial review, which APCo will file in March 2020 for the 2018 and 2019 test years. These amendments also preclude the Virginia SCC from performing biennial reviews of APCo’s earnings for the years 2014 through 2017. APCo's financial statements adequately address the impact of these amendments. The new law provides that APCo will absorb its Virginia jurisdictional share of incremental generation and distribution costs incurred during 2014 through 2017 that are associated with severe weather events and/or natural disasters and costs associated with potential impairments related to new carbon emission guidelines issued by the Federal EPA.

PSO Rate Matters

2015 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In July 2015, PSO filed a request with the OCC to increase annual revenues by $137 million to recover costs associated with its environmental compliance plan for the Federal EPA’s Regional Haze Rule and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and to recover investments and other costs that have increased since the last base rate case. The annual increase consists of (a) a base rate increase of $89 million, which includes $48 million in increased depreciation expense that reflects, among other things, recovery through June 2026 for Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4, (b) a rider or base rate increase of $44 million to recover costs for the environmental controls being installed on Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and the Comanche Plant and (c) a request to include environmental consumable costs in the FAC, estimated to be $4 million annually. The rate increase includes a proposed return on equity of 10.5% and is proposed to be effective in January 2016, except for the $44 million for environmental investments, which is proposed to be effective in March 2016, after the Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls go in service. The total estimated cost of the environmental controls to be installed at Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and the Comanche Plant is $219 million, excluding AFUDC. As of June 30, 2015, PSO has incurred costs of $140 million related to these projects, including AFUDC.

In addition, the filing also notified the OCC that future incremental purchased capacity and energy costs of an estimated $35 million will be incurred related to the environmental compliance plan, due to the closure of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 in April 2016, which would be recovered through the FAC. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 was $95 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.

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

2014 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In April 2015, the OCC issued an order that approved a non-unanimous stipulation agreement between PSO, the OCC staff and certain intervenors. The approved stipulation provides for no overall change to the transmission rider or to annual revenues, other than additional revenues through a separate rider related to advanced metering costs, and that the terms of the stipulation be effective November 2014. The advanced metering rider provides $24 million of revenues over 14 months beginning in November 2014 and increases to $27 million in 2016. The stipulation also included (a) new depreciation rates for advanced metering investments and existing meters, also effective November 2014, (b) a return on common equity of 9.85% to be used only in the formula to calculate AFUDC, factoring of customer receivables and for riders with an equity component and (c) recovery of regulatory assets for 2013 storms and regulatory case expenses. The advanced metering cost rider was implemented in November 2014.

I&M Rate Matters

Tanners Creek Plant

In October 2014, I&M filed an application with the IURC seeking approval of revised depreciation rates for Rockport Plant, Unit 1 and the Tanners Creek Plant. Upon retirement of the Tanners Creek Plant, I&M proposed that, for purposes of determining its depreciation rates, the net book value of the Tanners Creek Plant be recovered over the remaining life of the Rockport Plant. The new depreciation rates would result in a decrease in I&M's Indiana jurisdictional electric depreciation expense which I&M proposed to reduce customer rates through a credit rider. In May 2015, the IURC issued an order approving I&M's request for revised depreciation rates.

In May 2015, Tanners Creek Plant was retired. Upon retirement, $265 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet related to the net book value of Tanners Creek Plant and is being amortized over 29 years. An additional $38 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet for related asset retirement obligations and materials and supplies. These additional regulatory assets are currently not being amortized, pending regulatory approval.

Transmission, Distribution and Storage System Improvement Charge (TDSIC)

In October 2014, I&M filed petitions with the IURC for approval of a TDSIC Rider and approval of I&M’s seven-year TDSIC Plan, from 2015 through 2021, for eligible transmission, distribution and storage system improvements. The initial estimated cost of the capital improvements and associated operation and maintenance expenses included in the TDSIC Plan of $787 million, excluding AFUDC, would be updated annually. The TDSIC Plan included distribution investments specific to the Indiana jurisdiction. The TDSIC Rider would allow the periodic adjustment of I&M's rates to provide for timely recovery of 80% of approved TDSIC Plan costs. I&M would defer the remaining 20% of approved TDSIC Plan costs to be recovered in I&M's next general rate case. I&M did not seek a rate adjustment in this proceeding but sought approval of a TDSIC Rider rate adjustment mechanism for subsequent proceedings. In April 2015, I&M filed a notice with the IURC to seek approval of the proposed TDSIC Plan excluding $117 million of certain projects that were challenged in this proceeding. In May 2015, the IURC issued an order that denied I&M's TDSIC Plan and Rider. In May 2015, I&M filed a petition for reconsideration and/or rehearing with the IURC and in June 2015, filed a notice of appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Public Service Co Of Oklahoma [Member]

Rate Matters

RATE MATTERS

As discussed in the 2014 Annual Report, the Registrant Subsidiaries are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. The Rate Matters note within the 2014 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 2015 and updates the 2014 Annual Report.

Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval

	APCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Materials and Supplies Related to Retired Plants	$	7,588	$	—
Vegetation Management Program – West Virginia	—		19,089
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Asset Retirement Obligation Costs Related to Retired Plants	24,399		—
Demand Response Program Costs – Virginia	10,781		8,791
Amos Plant Transfer Costs – West Virginia	1,950		1,377
Storm Related Costs – West Virginia	—		65,206
Carbon Capture and Storage Product Validation Facility – West Virginia, FERC	—		13,264
IGCC Pre-Construction Costs – West Virginia, FERC	—		10,838
Expanded Net Energy Charge – Coal Inventory	—		3,421
Expanded Net Energy Charge – Construction Surcharge	—		2,307
Carbon Capture and Storage Commercial Scale Facility – West Virginia, FERC	—		1,287
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	168		168
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	44,886	$	125,748

	I&M
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Materials and Supplies Related to Retired Plants	$	11,722	$	—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Asset Retirement Obligation Costs Related to Retired Plants	27,079		—
Cook Plant Turbine	8,169		6,596
Stranded Costs on Abandoned Plants	3,897		3,897
Deferred Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project Costs – Michigan	2,721		1,222
Storm Related Costs – Indiana	857		1,074
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	547		860
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	54,992	$	13,649

	OPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Ormet Special Rate Recovery Mechanism	$	10,483	$	10,483
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	44		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	10,527	$	10,483

	PSO
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm Related Costs	$	—	$	16,614
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	—		1,079
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	—	$	17,693

	SWEPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Rate Case Expenses	$	—	$	8,126
Shipe Road Transmission Project	3,022		2,287
Asset Retirement Obligation	1,320		1,144
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	558		558
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	4,900	$	12,115

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

OPCo Rate Matters

Ohio Electric Security Plan Filings

2009 – 2011 ESP

The PUCO issued an order in March 2009 that modified and approved the ESP which established rates at the start of the April 2009 billing cycle through 2011. The order also provided a phase-in FAC, which was authorized to be recovered through a non-bypassable surcharge over the period 2012 through 2018.

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate proceeding which implemented a PIRR to recover deferred fuel costs in rates beginning September 2012. The PUCO ruled that carrying charges should be calculated without an offset for accumulated deferred income taxes and that a long-term debt rate should be applied when collections begin. In November 2012, OPCo appealed that PUCO order to the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming a long-term debt rate modified the previously adjudicated 2009 - 2011 ESP order, which granted a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) rate. In November 2012, the IEU filed an appeal of the PUCO decision that included the argument that carrying costs should be reduced due to an accumulated deferred income tax credit. In June 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision that reversed the PUCO order on the carrying cost rate issue and dismissed the appeal filed by the IEU. In June 2015, the IEU filed a motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court of Ohio related to the accumulated deferred income tax credit. If the Supreme Court of Ohio upholds its June 2015 order, it would remand the matter back to the PUCO for reinstatement of the WACC rate.

Management is unable to predict the outcome of the unresolved litigation discussed above. Depending on the ruling in this proceeding, it could impact future net income, cash flows and financial condition.

June 2012 – May 2015 ESP Including Capacity Charge

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order which adopted and modified a new ESP that established base generation rates through May 2015. This ruling was generally upheld in rehearing orders in January and March 2013.

In July 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate capacity proceeding which stated that OPCo must charge CRES providers the RPM price and authorized OPCo to defer a portion of its incurred capacity costs not recovered from CRES providers up to $188.88/MW day.  The OPCo RPM price collected from CRES providers, which includes reserve margins, was approximately $34/MW day through May 2014 and $150/MW day from June 2014 through May 2015.  In December 2012, various parties filed notices of appeal of the capacity costs decision with the Supreme Court of Ohio.  

As part of the August 2012 ESP order, the PUCO established a non-bypassable RSR, effective September 2012.  The RSR was collected from customers at $3.50/MWh through May 2014 and at $4.00/MWh for the period June 2014 through May 2015, with $1.00/MWh applied to the recovery of deferred capacity costs. In July 2014, OPCo submitted a separate application to continue the RSR to collect the unrecovered portion of the deferred capacity costs at the rate of $4.00/MWh until the balance of the capacity deferrals has been collected. In April 2015, the PUCO issued an order approving the application to continue the RSR, with modifications. The order included approval to continue the collection of deferred capacity costs at a rate of $4.00/MWh beginning June 1, 2015 for approximately 32 months, with carrying costs at a long-term cost of debt rate. Additionally, the order stated that an audit will be conducted of the May 31, 2015 capacity deferral balance, which was $444 million. In May 2015, the PUCO granted intervenors requests for rehearing. As of June 30, 2015, OPCo's incurred deferred capacity costs balance of $432 million, including debt carrying costs, was recorded in Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet.

In 2013, the PUCO issued its Orders on Rehearing for the ESP which generally upheld its August 2012 order. The PUCO clarified that a final reconciliation of revenues and expenses would be permitted for any over- or under-recovery on several riders including fuel. In addition, the PUCO addressed certain issues around the energy auctions while other SSO issues related to the energy auctions were deferred to a separate docket related to the competitive bid process (CBP). In 2013, OPCo and various intervenors filed appeals with the Supreme Court of Ohio challenging portions of the PUCO’s ESP order. Oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Ohio were held in May 2015.

In November 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo’s CBP with modifications. As ordered, in 2014, OPCo conducted multiple energy-only auctions for a total of 100% of the SSO load with delivery beginning April 2014 through May 2015. As provided for in the June 2015 - May 2018 ESP, for delivery starting in June 2015, OPCo now conducts energy and capacity auctions for its entire SSO load. The PUCO also approved the unbundling of the FAC into fixed and energy-related components and an intervenor proposal to blend the $188.88/MW day capacity price in proportion to the percentage of energy planned to be auctioned. Additionally, the PUCO ordered that intervenor concerns related to the recovery of the fixed fuel costs through potentially both the FAC and the approved capacity charges be addressed in subsequent FAC proceedings.

In January 2014, the PUCO denied all rehearing requests and agreed to issue a supplemental request for an independent auditor in the 2012 - 2013 FAC proceeding to separately examine the recovery of the fixed fuel costs, including OVEC. In March 2014, the PUCO approved OPCo’s request to implement riders related to the unbundling of the FAC. In October 2014, the independent auditor, selected by the PUCO, filed its report for the period August 2012 through May 2015 with the PUCO. If the PUCO ultimately concludes that a portion of the fixed fuel costs are also recovered through OPCo's $188.88/MW day capacity charge, the independent auditor has recommended a methodology for calculating a refund of a portion of certain fixed fuel costs. The retail share of these fixed fuel costs is approximately $90 million annually. A hearing related to this matter has not been scheduled. Management believes that no over-recovery of costs has occurred and disagrees with the findings in the audit report.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect all components of its ESP rates, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

June 2015 - May 2018 ESP

In December 2013, OPCo filed an application with the PUCO to approve an ESP that included proposed rate adjustments and the continuation and modification of certain existing riders, including the Distribution Investment Rider (DIR), effective June 2015 through May 2018. The proposal included a return on common equity of 10.65% on capital costs for certain riders. The proposal also included a purchased power agreement (PPA) rider that would allow retail customers to receive a rate stabilizing charge or credit by hedging market-based prices with a cost-based PPA. The PPA would initially be based upon the OVEC contractual entitlement and could, upon further approval, be expanded to include other contracts involving other Ohio legacy generation assets. In October 2014, OPCo filed a separate application with the PUCO to propose a new extended PPA with AGR for 2,671 MW for inclusion in the PPA rider.

In February 2015, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo's ESP application, subject to certain modifications, with a return on common equity of 10.2% on capital costs for certain riders. The order included (a) approval of the DIR with modified rate caps established by the PUCO, (b) authorization to establish a zero rate rider for OPCo's proposed PPA, (c) the option for OPCo to reapply in a future proceeding with a more detailed PPA proposal and (d) a directive to continue to pursue the transfer of the OVEC contractual entitlement to AGR or to otherwise divest of its interest in OVEC. In May 2015, on rehearing, the PUCO issued an order that increased the DIR rate caps and deferred ruling on all requests for rehearing related to the establishment of the PPA rider. In June 2015, OPCo and various intervenors filed applications for rehearing with the PUCO related to the May 2015 order on rehearing. In July 2015, the PUCO granted the requests for rehearing.

In May 2015, OPCo filed an amended PPA application between OPCo and AGR that (a) included OPCo's OVEC contractual entitlement, (b) addressed the PPA requirements set forth in the PUCO's February 2015 order, (c) updated supporting testimony to reflect a current analysis of the PPA proposal and (d) continued to include the 2,671 MW to be available for capacity, energy and ancillary services, produced by AGR over the lives of the respective generating units.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect all components of its ESP rates, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Significantly Excessive Earnings Test Filings

In January 2011, the PUCO issued an order on the 2009 SEET filing. The order gave consideration for a future commitment to invest $20 million to support the development of a large solar farm. In January 2013, the PUCO found there was not a need for the large solar farm. The PUCO noted that OPCo remains obligated to spend $20 million on this solar project or another project. In September 2013, a proposed second phase of OPCo’s gridSMART^® program was filed with the PUCO which included a proposed project to satisfy this PUCO directive. A decision from the PUCO is pending.

In June 2015, OPCo filed its 2014 SEET filing with the PUCO. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of 2014 SEET requirements.

Corporate Separation

In October 2012, the PUCO issued an order which approved the corporate separation of OPCo’s generation assets including the transfer of OPCo’s generation assets and associated generation liabilities at net book value to AGR. In June 2013, the IEU filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming the PUCO order approving the corporate separation was unlawful. A decision from the Supreme Court of Ohio is pending. In December 2013, corporate separation of OPCo’s generation assets was completed. If any part of the PUCO order is overturned, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2009 Fuel Adjustment Clause Audit

In January 2012, the PUCO issued an order in OPCo’s 2009 FAC that the remaining $65 million in proceeds from a 2008 coal contract settlement agreement be applied against OPCo’s under-recovered fuel balance. In April 2012, on rehearing, the PUCO ordered that the settlement credit only needed to reflect the Ohio retail jurisdictional share of the gain not already flowed through the FAC with carrying charges. As a result, OPCo recorded a $30 million net favorable adjustment on the statement of income in 2012. The January 2012 PUCO order also stated that a consultant should be hired to review the coal reserve valuation and recommend whether any additional value should benefit ratepayers.

In September 2014, the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the PUCO order on appeal. A review of the coal reserve valuation by an outside consultant has not been initiated by the PUCO. If the PUCO ultimately determines that additional amounts should benefit ratepayers as a result of the consultant’s review of the coal reserve valuation, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2012 and 2013 Fuel Adjustment Clause Audits

In May 2014, the PUCO-selected outside consultant provided its final report related to its 2012 and 2013 FAC audit which included certain unfavorable recommendations related to the FAC recovery for 2012 and 2013. These recommendations are opposed by OPCo. In addition, the PUCO will consider the results of the final audit of the recovery of fixed fuel costs that was issued in October 2014. See the "June 2012 - May 2015 ESP Including Capacity Charge" section above. If the PUCO orders a reduction to the FAC deferral or a refund to customers, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Ormet

Ormet, a large aluminum company, had a contract to purchase power from OPCo through 2018. In 2013, Ormet filed for bankruptcy and subsequently shut down operations. In March 2014, the PUCO issued an order in OPCo’s Economic Development Rider (EDR) filing allowing OPCo to include $39 million of Ormet-related foregone revenues in the EDR effective April 2014. The order stated that if the stipulation agreement between OPCo and Ormet is subsequently adopted by the PUCO, OPCo could file an application to modify the EDR rate for the remainder of the period requesting recovery of the remaining $10 million of Ormet deferrals which, as of June 30, 2015, is recorded in Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet. In April 2014, an intervenor filed testimony objecting to $5 million of the remaining foregone revenues. A hearing at the PUCO related to the stipulation agreement was held in May 2014.

In addition, in the 2009 - 2011 ESP proceeding, intervenors requested that OPCo be required to refund the Ormet-related revenues under a previous interim arrangement (effective from January 2009 through September 2009) and requested that the PUCO prevent OPCo from collecting Ormet-related revenues in the future. Through September 2009, the last month of the interim arrangement, OPCo had $64 million of deferred FAC costs related to the interim arrangement, excluding $2 million of unrecognized equity carrying costs. The PUCO did not take any action on this request. The intervenors raised this issue again in response to OPCo’s November 2009 filing to approve recovery of the deferral under the interim agreement.

To the extent amounts discussed above are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

SWEPCo Rate Matters

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. Additionally, the PUCT deferred consideration of the requested increase in depreciation expense related to the change in the 2016 retirement date of the Welsh Plant, Unit 2. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was $83 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.

Upon rehearing in January 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, in the fourth quarter of 2013, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of previously recorded regulatory disallowances. The resulting annual base rate increase is approximately $52 million. In March 2014, the PUCT issued an order related to the January 2014 PUCT ruling and in April 2014, this order became final. In May 2014, intervenors filed appeals of that order with the Texas District Court. In June 2014, SWEPCo intervened in those appeals and filed initial responses.

If certain parts of the PUCT order are overturned or if SWEPCo cannot ultimately recover its Texas jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant investment, including AFUDC, or its retirement-related costs and potential fuel or replacement power disallowances related to Welsh Plant, Unit 2, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In 2012, SWEPCo initiated a proceeding to establish new formula base rates in Louisiana, including recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share (approximately 29%) of the Turk Plant.  In February 2013, a settlement was filed and approved by the LPSC.  The settlement increased SWEPCo's Louisiana total rates by approximately $2 million annually, effective March 2013, which consisted of an increase in base rates of approximately $85 million annually offset by a decrease in fuel and other rates of approximately $83 million annually.  The March 2013 base rates are based on a 10% return on common equity and cost recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant and Stall Unit. The rates are subject to refund based on the staff review of the cost of service and the prudency review of the Turk Plant. The settlement also provided that the LPSC review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo recover non-fuel Turk Plant costs and a full weighted-average cost of capital return on the prudently incurred Turk Plant investment in jurisdictional rate base, effective January 2013. In December 2014, the LPSC approved a settlement agreement related to the staff review of the cost of service. The settlement agreement reduced the requested revenue increase by $3 million, primarily due to the timing of both the allowed recovery of certain existing regulatory assets and the establishment of a regulatory asset for certain previously expensed costs. If the LPSC orders refunds based upon the pending prudence review of the Turk Plant investment, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2014 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In April 2014, SWEPCo filed its annual formula rate plan for test year 2013 with the LPSC.  The filing included a $5 million annual increase, which was effective August 2014.  SWEPCo also proposed to increase rates by an additional $15 million annually, effective January 2015, for a total annual increase of $20 million. This additional increase reflects the cost of incremental generation to be used to serve Louisiana customers in 2015 due to the expiration of a purchase power agreement attributable to Louisiana customers.  In December 2014, the LPSC approved a partial settlement agreement that included the implementation of the $15 million annual increase in rates effective January 2015. These increases are subject to LPSC staff review and are subject to refund.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2015 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In April 2015, SWEPCo filed its formula rate plan for test year 2014 with the LPSC.  The filing included a $14 million annual increase, which will be effective August 2015.  This increase is subject to LPSC staff review and is subject to refund.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 – Environmental Projects

To comply with pending Federal EPA regulations, SWEPCo is currently constructing environmental control projects to meet mercury and air toxics standards for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 at a cost of approximately $410 million, excluding AFUDC.  Management currently estimates that the total environmental projects to be completed through 2020 for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 will cost approximately $600 million, excluding AFUDC.  As of June 30, 2015, SWEPCo has incurred costs of $256 million, including AFUDC, and has remaining contractual construction obligations of $89 million related to these projects.  SWEPCo will seek recovery of these project costs from customers through filings at the state commissions and the FERC. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $484 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. 

APCo Rate Matters

2014 West Virginia Base Rate Case

In June 2014, APCo filed a request with the WVPSC to increase annual base rates by $156 million, based upon a 10.62% return on common equity, to be effective in the second quarter of 2015. The filing included a request to increase generation depreciation rates primarily due to the increase in plant investment and changes in the expected service lives of various generating units. The filing also requested recovery of $77 million in regulatory assets over five years related to 2012 West Virginia storm costs, IGCC and other deferred costs. In addition to the base rate request, the filing also included a request to implement a rider of approximately $38 million annually to recover vegetation management costs, including a return on capital investment. 

In May 2015, the WVPSC issued an order on the base rate case. Upon implementation of the order in May 2015, and consistent with the WVPSC authorized total revenue, annual base rates were authorized to be increased by $85 million based upon a 9.75% return on common equity. The order included a delayed billing of $22 million of the annual base rate increase to residential customers until July 2016. The order provided for carrying charges based upon a WACC rate for the $22 million annual delayed billing through June 2016, and stated recovery would be addressed in the next ENEC case scheduled for 2016. Additionally, the order included approval of (a) an initial vegetation management rider of $38 million annually, (b) revised deprecation rates, including recovery of plants to be retired and (c) the recovery of $77 million in previously recorded regulatory assets, which will predominantly be recovered over five years.

In June 2015, the WVPSC staff and intervenors filed motions for reconsideration and clarification related to various issues including recovery of lost revenues and the allowed carrying charge rate related to the delayed residential revenues. In July 2015, the WVPSC issued an order that denied all motions for reconsideration.

2015 Virginia Regulatory Asset Proceeding

In January 2015, the Virginia SCC initiated a separate proceeding to address the proper treatment of APCo’s authorized regulatory assets. As of June 30, 2015, APCo’s authorized regulatory assets under review in this proceeding are estimated to be $12 million. In February and March 2015, briefs related to this proceeding were filed by various parties. If any of these costs, or any additional costs that may be subject to review, are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

New Virginia Legislation Affecting Biennial Reviews

In February 2015, amendments to Virginia law governing the regulation of investor-owned electric utilities were enacted. Under the amended Virginia law, APCo’s existing generation and distribution base rates are frozen until after the Virginia SCC rules on APCo’s next biennial review, which APCo will file in March 2020 for the 2018 and 2019 test years. These amendments also preclude the Virginia SCC from performing biennial reviews of APCo’s earnings for the years 2014 through 2017. APCo's financial statements adequately address the impact of these amendments. The new law provides that APCo will absorb its Virginia jurisdictional share of incremental generation and distribution costs incurred during 2014 through 2017 that are associated with severe weather events and/or natural disasters and costs associated with potential impairments related to new carbon emission guidelines issued by the Federal EPA.

PSO Rate Matters

2015 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In July 2015, PSO filed a request with the OCC to increase annual revenues by $137 million to recover costs associated with its environmental compliance plan for the Federal EPA’s Regional Haze Rule and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and to recover investments and other costs that have increased since the last base rate case. The annual increase consists of (a) a base rate increase of $89 million, which includes $48 million in increased depreciation expense that reflects, among other things, recovery through June 2026 for Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4, (b) a rider or base rate increase of $44 million to recover costs for the environmental controls being installed on Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and the Comanche Plant and (c) a request to include environmental consumable costs in the FAC, estimated to be $4 million annually. The rate increase includes a proposed return on equity of 10.5% and is proposed to be effective in January 2016, except for the $44 million for environmental investments, which is proposed to be effective in March 2016, after the Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls go in service. The total estimated cost of the environmental controls to be installed at Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and the Comanche Plant is $219 million, excluding AFUDC. As of June 30, 2015, PSO has incurred costs of $140 million related to these projects, including AFUDC.

In addition, the filing also notified the OCC that future incremental purchased capacity and energy costs of an estimated $35 million will be incurred related to the environmental compliance plan, due to the closure of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 in April 2016, which would be recovered through the FAC. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 was $95 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.

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

2014 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In April 2015, the OCC issued an order that approved a non-unanimous stipulation agreement between PSO, the OCC staff and certain intervenors. The approved stipulation provides for no overall change to the transmission rider or to annual revenues, other than additional revenues through a separate rider related to advanced metering costs, and that the terms of the stipulation be effective November 2014. The advanced metering rider provides $24 million of revenues over 14 months beginning in November 2014 and increases to $27 million in 2016. The stipulation also included (a) new depreciation rates for advanced metering investments and existing meters, also effective November 2014, (b) a return on common equity of 9.85% to be used only in the formula to calculate AFUDC, factoring of customer receivables and for riders with an equity component and (c) recovery of regulatory assets for 2013 storms and regulatory case expenses. The advanced metering cost rider was implemented in November 2014.

I&M Rate Matters

Tanners Creek Plant

In October 2014, I&M filed an application with the IURC seeking approval of revised depreciation rates for Rockport Plant, Unit 1 and the Tanners Creek Plant. Upon retirement of the Tanners Creek Plant, I&M proposed that, for purposes of determining its depreciation rates, the net book value of the Tanners Creek Plant be recovered over the remaining life of the Rockport Plant. The new depreciation rates would result in a decrease in I&M's Indiana jurisdictional electric depreciation expense which I&M proposed to reduce customer rates through a credit rider. In May 2015, the IURC issued an order approving I&M's request for revised depreciation rates.

In May 2015, Tanners Creek Plant was retired. Upon retirement, $265 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet related to the net book value of Tanners Creek Plant and is being amortized over 29 years. An additional $38 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet for related asset retirement obligations and materials and supplies. These additional regulatory assets are currently not being amortized, pending regulatory approval.

Transmission, Distribution and Storage System Improvement Charge (TDSIC)

In October 2014, I&M filed petitions with the IURC for approval of a TDSIC Rider and approval of I&M’s seven-year TDSIC Plan, from 2015 through 2021, for eligible transmission, distribution and storage system improvements. The initial estimated cost of the capital improvements and associated operation and maintenance expenses included in the TDSIC Plan of $787 million, excluding AFUDC, would be updated annually. The TDSIC Plan included distribution investments specific to the Indiana jurisdiction. The TDSIC Rider would allow the periodic adjustment of I&M's rates to provide for timely recovery of 80% of approved TDSIC Plan costs. I&M would defer the remaining 20% of approved TDSIC Plan costs to be recovered in I&M's next general rate case. I&M did not seek a rate adjustment in this proceeding but sought approval of a TDSIC Rider rate adjustment mechanism for subsequent proceedings. In April 2015, I&M filed a notice with the IURC to seek approval of the proposed TDSIC Plan excluding $117 million of certain projects that were challenged in this proceeding. In May 2015, the IURC issued an order that denied I&M's TDSIC Plan and Rider. In May 2015, I&M filed a petition for reconsideration and/or rehearing with the IURC and in June 2015, filed a notice of appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Southwestern Electric Power Co [Member]

Rate Matters

RATE MATTERS

As discussed in the 2014 Annual Report, the Registrant Subsidiaries are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. The Rate Matters note within the 2014 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 2015 and updates the 2014 Annual Report.

Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval

	APCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Materials and Supplies Related to Retired Plants	$	7,588	$	—
Vegetation Management Program – West Virginia	—		19,089
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Asset Retirement Obligation Costs Related to Retired Plants	24,399		—
Demand Response Program Costs – Virginia	10,781		8,791
Amos Plant Transfer Costs – West Virginia	1,950		1,377
Storm Related Costs – West Virginia	—		65,206
Carbon Capture and Storage Product Validation Facility – West Virginia, FERC	—		13,264
IGCC Pre-Construction Costs – West Virginia, FERC	—		10,838
Expanded Net Energy Charge – Coal Inventory	—		3,421
Expanded Net Energy Charge – Construction Surcharge	—		2,307
Carbon Capture and Storage Commercial Scale Facility – West Virginia, FERC	—		1,287
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	168		168
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	44,886	$	125,748

	I&M
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Materials and Supplies Related to Retired Plants	$	11,722	$	—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Asset Retirement Obligation Costs Related to Retired Plants	27,079		—
Cook Plant Turbine	8,169		6,596
Stranded Costs on Abandoned Plants	3,897		3,897
Deferred Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project Costs – Michigan	2,721		1,222
Storm Related Costs – Indiana	857		1,074
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	547		860
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	54,992	$	13,649

	OPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Ormet Special Rate Recovery Mechanism	$	10,483	$	10,483
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	44		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	10,527	$	10,483

	PSO
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm Related Costs	$	—	$	16,614
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	—		1,079
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	—	$	17,693

	SWEPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2015		2014
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in thousands)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Rate Case Expenses	$	—	$	8,126
Shipe Road Transmission Project	3,022		2,287
Asset Retirement Obligation	1,320		1,144
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	558		558
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	4,900	$	12,115

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

OPCo Rate Matters

Ohio Electric Security Plan Filings

2009 – 2011 ESP

The PUCO issued an order in March 2009 that modified and approved the ESP which established rates at the start of the April 2009 billing cycle through 2011. The order also provided a phase-in FAC, which was authorized to be recovered through a non-bypassable surcharge over the period 2012 through 2018.

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate proceeding which implemented a PIRR to recover deferred fuel costs in rates beginning September 2012. The PUCO ruled that carrying charges should be calculated without an offset for accumulated deferred income taxes and that a long-term debt rate should be applied when collections begin. In November 2012, OPCo appealed that PUCO order to the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming a long-term debt rate modified the previously adjudicated 2009 - 2011 ESP order, which granted a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) rate. In November 2012, the IEU filed an appeal of the PUCO decision that included the argument that carrying costs should be reduced due to an accumulated deferred income tax credit. In June 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision that reversed the PUCO order on the carrying cost rate issue and dismissed the appeal filed by the IEU. In June 2015, the IEU filed a motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court of Ohio related to the accumulated deferred income tax credit. If the Supreme Court of Ohio upholds its June 2015 order, it would remand the matter back to the PUCO for reinstatement of the WACC rate.

Management is unable to predict the outcome of the unresolved litigation discussed above. Depending on the ruling in this proceeding, it could impact future net income, cash flows and financial condition.

June 2012 – May 2015 ESP Including Capacity Charge

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order which adopted and modified a new ESP that established base generation rates through May 2015. This ruling was generally upheld in rehearing orders in January and March 2013.

In July 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate capacity proceeding which stated that OPCo must charge CRES providers the RPM price and authorized OPCo to defer a portion of its incurred capacity costs not recovered from CRES providers up to $188.88/MW day.  The OPCo RPM price collected from CRES providers, which includes reserve margins, was approximately $34/MW day through May 2014 and $150/MW day from June 2014 through May 2015.  In December 2012, various parties filed notices of appeal of the capacity costs decision with the Supreme Court of Ohio.  

As part of the August 2012 ESP order, the PUCO established a non-bypassable RSR, effective September 2012.  The RSR was collected from customers at $3.50/MWh through May 2014 and at $4.00/MWh for the period June 2014 through May 2015, with $1.00/MWh applied to the recovery of deferred capacity costs. In July 2014, OPCo submitted a separate application to continue the RSR to collect the unrecovered portion of the deferred capacity costs at the rate of $4.00/MWh until the balance of the capacity deferrals has been collected. In April 2015, the PUCO issued an order approving the application to continue the RSR, with modifications. The order included approval to continue the collection of deferred capacity costs at a rate of $4.00/MWh beginning June 1, 2015 for approximately 32 months, with carrying costs at a long-term cost of debt rate. Additionally, the order stated that an audit will be conducted of the May 31, 2015 capacity deferral balance, which was $444 million. In May 2015, the PUCO granted intervenors requests for rehearing. As of June 30, 2015, OPCo's incurred deferred capacity costs balance of $432 million, including debt carrying costs, was recorded in Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet.

In 2013, the PUCO issued its Orders on Rehearing for the ESP which generally upheld its August 2012 order. The PUCO clarified that a final reconciliation of revenues and expenses would be permitted for any over- or under-recovery on several riders including fuel. In addition, the PUCO addressed certain issues around the energy auctions while other SSO issues related to the energy auctions were deferred to a separate docket related to the competitive bid process (CBP). In 2013, OPCo and various intervenors filed appeals with the Supreme Court of Ohio challenging portions of the PUCO’s ESP order. Oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Ohio were held in May 2015.

In November 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo’s CBP with modifications. As ordered, in 2014, OPCo conducted multiple energy-only auctions for a total of 100% of the SSO load with delivery beginning April 2014 through May 2015. As provided for in the June 2015 - May 2018 ESP, for delivery starting in June 2015, OPCo now conducts energy and capacity auctions for its entire SSO load. The PUCO also approved the unbundling of the FAC into fixed and energy-related components and an intervenor proposal to blend the $188.88/MW day capacity price in proportion to the percentage of energy planned to be auctioned. Additionally, the PUCO ordered that intervenor concerns related to the recovery of the fixed fuel costs through potentially both the FAC and the approved capacity charges be addressed in subsequent FAC proceedings.

In January 2014, the PUCO denied all rehearing requests and agreed to issue a supplemental request for an independent auditor in the 2012 - 2013 FAC proceeding to separately examine the recovery of the fixed fuel costs, including OVEC. In March 2014, the PUCO approved OPCo’s request to implement riders related to the unbundling of the FAC. In October 2014, the independent auditor, selected by the PUCO, filed its report for the period August 2012 through May 2015 with the PUCO. If the PUCO ultimately concludes that a portion of the fixed fuel costs are also recovered through OPCo's $188.88/MW day capacity charge, the independent auditor has recommended a methodology for calculating a refund of a portion of certain fixed fuel costs. The retail share of these fixed fuel costs is approximately $90 million annually. A hearing related to this matter has not been scheduled. Management believes that no over-recovery of costs has occurred and disagrees with the findings in the audit report.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect all components of its ESP rates, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

June 2015 - May 2018 ESP

In December 2013, OPCo filed an application with the PUCO to approve an ESP that included proposed rate adjustments and the continuation and modification of certain existing riders, including the Distribution Investment Rider (DIR), effective June 2015 through May 2018. The proposal included a return on common equity of 10.65% on capital costs for certain riders. The proposal also included a purchased power agreement (PPA) rider that would allow retail customers to receive a rate stabilizing charge or credit by hedging market-based prices with a cost-based PPA. The PPA would initially be based upon the OVEC contractual entitlement and could, upon further approval, be expanded to include other contracts involving other Ohio legacy generation assets. In October 2014, OPCo filed a separate application with the PUCO to propose a new extended PPA with AGR for 2,671 MW for inclusion in the PPA rider.

In February 2015, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo's ESP application, subject to certain modifications, with a return on common equity of 10.2% on capital costs for certain riders. The order included (a) approval of the DIR with modified rate caps established by the PUCO, (b) authorization to establish a zero rate rider for OPCo's proposed PPA, (c) the option for OPCo to reapply in a future proceeding with a more detailed PPA proposal and (d) a directive to continue to pursue the transfer of the OVEC contractual entitlement to AGR or to otherwise divest of its interest in OVEC. In May 2015, on rehearing, the PUCO issued an order that increased the DIR rate caps and deferred ruling on all requests for rehearing related to the establishment of the PPA rider. In June 2015, OPCo and various intervenors filed applications for rehearing with the PUCO related to the May 2015 order on rehearing. In July 2015, the PUCO granted the requests for rehearing.

In May 2015, OPCo filed an amended PPA application between OPCo and AGR that (a) included OPCo's OVEC contractual entitlement, (b) addressed the PPA requirements set forth in the PUCO's February 2015 order, (c) updated supporting testimony to reflect a current analysis of the PPA proposal and (d) continued to include the 2,671 MW to be available for capacity, energy and ancillary services, produced by AGR over the lives of the respective generating units.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect all components of its ESP rates, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Significantly Excessive Earnings Test Filings

In January 2011, the PUCO issued an order on the 2009 SEET filing. The order gave consideration for a future commitment to invest $20 million to support the development of a large solar farm. In January 2013, the PUCO found there was not a need for the large solar farm. The PUCO noted that OPCo remains obligated to spend $20 million on this solar project or another project. In September 2013, a proposed second phase of OPCo’s gridSMART^® program was filed with the PUCO which included a proposed project to satisfy this PUCO directive. A decision from the PUCO is pending.

In June 2015, OPCo filed its 2014 SEET filing with the PUCO. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of 2014 SEET requirements.

Corporate Separation

In October 2012, the PUCO issued an order which approved the corporate separation of OPCo’s generation assets including the transfer of OPCo’s generation assets and associated generation liabilities at net book value to AGR. In June 2013, the IEU filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming the PUCO order approving the corporate separation was unlawful. A decision from the Supreme Court of Ohio is pending. In December 2013, corporate separation of OPCo’s generation assets was completed. If any part of the PUCO order is overturned, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2009 Fuel Adjustment Clause Audit

In January 2012, the PUCO issued an order in OPCo’s 2009 FAC that the remaining $65 million in proceeds from a 2008 coal contract settlement agreement be applied against OPCo’s under-recovered fuel balance. In April 2012, on rehearing, the PUCO ordered that the settlement credit only needed to reflect the Ohio retail jurisdictional share of the gain not already flowed through the FAC with carrying charges. As a result, OPCo recorded a $30 million net favorable adjustment on the statement of income in 2012. The January 2012 PUCO order also stated that a consultant should be hired to review the coal reserve valuation and recommend whether any additional value should benefit ratepayers.

In September 2014, the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the PUCO order on appeal. A review of the coal reserve valuation by an outside consultant has not been initiated by the PUCO. If the PUCO ultimately determines that additional amounts should benefit ratepayers as a result of the consultant’s review of the coal reserve valuation, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2012 and 2013 Fuel Adjustment Clause Audits

In May 2014, the PUCO-selected outside consultant provided its final report related to its 2012 and 2013 FAC audit which included certain unfavorable recommendations related to the FAC recovery for 2012 and 2013. These recommendations are opposed by OPCo. In addition, the PUCO will consider the results of the final audit of the recovery of fixed fuel costs that was issued in October 2014. See the "June 2012 - May 2015 ESP Including Capacity Charge" section above. If the PUCO orders a reduction to the FAC deferral or a refund to customers, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Ormet

Ormet, a large aluminum company, had a contract to purchase power from OPCo through 2018. In 2013, Ormet filed for bankruptcy and subsequently shut down operations. In March 2014, the PUCO issued an order in OPCo’s Economic Development Rider (EDR) filing allowing OPCo to include $39 million of Ormet-related foregone revenues in the EDR effective April 2014. The order stated that if the stipulation agreement between OPCo and Ormet is subsequently adopted by the PUCO, OPCo could file an application to modify the EDR rate for the remainder of the period requesting recovery of the remaining $10 million of Ormet deferrals which, as of June 30, 2015, is recorded in Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet. In April 2014, an intervenor filed testimony objecting to $5 million of the remaining foregone revenues. A hearing at the PUCO related to the stipulation agreement was held in May 2014.

In addition, in the 2009 - 2011 ESP proceeding, intervenors requested that OPCo be required to refund the Ormet-related revenues under a previous interim arrangement (effective from January 2009 through September 2009) and requested that the PUCO prevent OPCo from collecting Ormet-related revenues in the future. Through September 2009, the last month of the interim arrangement, OPCo had $64 million of deferred FAC costs related to the interim arrangement, excluding $2 million of unrecognized equity carrying costs. The PUCO did not take any action on this request. The intervenors raised this issue again in response to OPCo’s November 2009 filing to approve recovery of the deferral under the interim agreement.

To the extent amounts discussed above are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

SWEPCo Rate Matters

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. Additionally, the PUCT deferred consideration of the requested increase in depreciation expense related to the change in the 2016 retirement date of the Welsh Plant, Unit 2. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was $83 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.

Upon rehearing in January 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, in the fourth quarter of 2013, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of previously recorded regulatory disallowances. The resulting annual base rate increase is approximately $52 million. In March 2014, the PUCT issued an order related to the January 2014 PUCT ruling and in April 2014, this order became final. In May 2014, intervenors filed appeals of that order with the Texas District Court. In June 2014, SWEPCo intervened in those appeals and filed initial responses.

If certain parts of the PUCT order are overturned or if SWEPCo cannot ultimately recover its Texas jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant investment, including AFUDC, or its retirement-related costs and potential fuel or replacement power disallowances related to Welsh Plant, Unit 2, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In 2012, SWEPCo initiated a proceeding to establish new formula base rates in Louisiana, including recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share (approximately 29%) of the Turk Plant.  In February 2013, a settlement was filed and approved by the LPSC.  The settlement increased SWEPCo's Louisiana total rates by approximately $2 million annually, effective March 2013, which consisted of an increase in base rates of approximately $85 million annually offset by a decrease in fuel and other rates of approximately $83 million annually.  The March 2013 base rates are based on a 10% return on common equity and cost recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant and Stall Unit. The rates are subject to refund based on the staff review of the cost of service and the prudency review of the Turk Plant. The settlement also provided that the LPSC review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo recover non-fuel Turk Plant costs and a full weighted-average cost of capital return on the prudently incurred Turk Plant investment in jurisdictional rate base, effective January 2013. In December 2014, the LPSC approved a settlement agreement related to the staff review of the cost of service. The settlement agreement reduced the requested revenue increase by $3 million, primarily due to the timing of both the allowed recovery of certain existing regulatory assets and the establishment of a regulatory asset for certain previously expensed costs. If the LPSC orders refunds based upon the pending prudence review of the Turk Plant investment, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2014 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In April 2014, SWEPCo filed its annual formula rate plan for test year 2013 with the LPSC.  The filing included a $5 million annual increase, which was effective August 2014.  SWEPCo also proposed to increase rates by an additional $15 million annually, effective January 2015, for a total annual increase of $20 million. This additional increase reflects the cost of incremental generation to be used to serve Louisiana customers in 2015 due to the expiration of a purchase power agreement attributable to Louisiana customers.  In December 2014, the LPSC approved a partial settlement agreement that included the implementation of the $15 million annual increase in rates effective January 2015. These increases are subject to LPSC staff review and are subject to refund.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2015 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In April 2015, SWEPCo filed its formula rate plan for test year 2014 with the LPSC.  The filing included a $14 million annual increase, which will be effective August 2015.  This increase is subject to LPSC staff review and is subject to refund.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 – Environmental Projects

To comply with pending Federal EPA regulations, SWEPCo is currently constructing environmental control projects to meet mercury and air toxics standards for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 at a cost of approximately $410 million, excluding AFUDC.  Management currently estimates that the total environmental projects to be completed through 2020 for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 will cost approximately $600 million, excluding AFUDC.  As of June 30, 2015, SWEPCo has incurred costs of $256 million, including AFUDC, and has remaining contractual construction obligations of $89 million related to these projects.  SWEPCo will seek recovery of these project costs from customers through filings at the state commissions and the FERC. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $484 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. 

APCo Rate Matters

2014 West Virginia Base Rate Case

In June 2014, APCo filed a request with the WVPSC to increase annual base rates by $156 million, based upon a 10.62% return on common equity, to be effective in the second quarter of 2015. The filing included a request to increase generation depreciation rates primarily due to the increase in plant investment and changes in the expected service lives of various generating units. The filing also requested recovery of $77 million in regulatory assets over five years related to 2012 West Virginia storm costs, IGCC and other deferred costs. In addition to the base rate request, the filing also included a request to implement a rider of approximately $38 million annually to recover vegetation management costs, including a return on capital investment. 

In May 2015, the WVPSC issued an order on the base rate case. Upon implementation of the order in May 2015, and consistent with the WVPSC authorized total revenue, annual base rates were authorized to be increased by $85 million based upon a 9.75% return on common equity. The order included a delayed billing of $22 million of the annual base rate increase to residential customers until July 2016. The order provided for carrying charges based upon a WACC rate for the $22 million annual delayed billing through June 2016, and stated recovery would be addressed in the next ENEC case scheduled for 2016. Additionally, the order included approval of (a) an initial vegetation management rider of $38 million annually, (b) revised deprecation rates, including recovery of plants to be retired and (c) the recovery of $77 million in previously recorded regulatory assets, which will predominantly be recovered over five years.

In June 2015, the WVPSC staff and intervenors filed motions for reconsideration and clarification related to various issues including recovery of lost revenues and the allowed carrying charge rate related to the delayed residential revenues. In July 2015, the WVPSC issued an order that denied all motions for reconsideration.

2015 Virginia Regulatory Asset Proceeding

In January 2015, the Virginia SCC initiated a separate proceeding to address the proper treatment of APCo’s authorized regulatory assets. As of June 30, 2015, APCo’s authorized regulatory assets under review in this proceeding are estimated to be $12 million. In February and March 2015, briefs related to this proceeding were filed by various parties. If any of these costs, or any additional costs that may be subject to review, are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

New Virginia Legislation Affecting Biennial Reviews

In February 2015, amendments to Virginia law governing the regulation of investor-owned electric utilities were enacted. Under the amended Virginia law, APCo’s existing generation and distribution base rates are frozen until after the Virginia SCC rules on APCo’s next biennial review, which APCo will file in March 2020 for the 2018 and 2019 test years. These amendments also preclude the Virginia SCC from performing biennial reviews of APCo’s earnings for the years 2014 through 2017. APCo's financial statements adequately address the impact of these amendments. The new law provides that APCo will absorb its Virginia jurisdictional share of incremental generation and distribution costs incurred during 2014 through 2017 that are associated with severe weather events and/or natural disasters and costs associated with potential impairments related to new carbon emission guidelines issued by the Federal EPA.

PSO Rate Matters

2015 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In July 2015, PSO filed a request with the OCC to increase annual revenues by $137 million to recover costs associated with its environmental compliance plan for the Federal EPA’s Regional Haze Rule and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and to recover investments and other costs that have increased since the last base rate case. The annual increase consists of (a) a base rate increase of $89 million, which includes $48 million in increased depreciation expense that reflects, among other things, recovery through June 2026 for Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4, (b) a rider or base rate increase of $44 million to recover costs for the environmental controls being installed on Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and the Comanche Plant and (c) a request to include environmental consumable costs in the FAC, estimated to be $4 million annually. The rate increase includes a proposed return on equity of 10.5% and is proposed to be effective in January 2016, except for the $44 million for environmental investments, which is proposed to be effective in March 2016, after the Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls go in service. The total estimated cost of the environmental controls to be installed at Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and the Comanche Plant is $219 million, excluding AFUDC. As of June 30, 2015, PSO has incurred costs of $140 million related to these projects, including AFUDC.

In addition, the filing also notified the OCC that future incremental purchased capacity and energy costs of an estimated $35 million will be incurred related to the environmental compliance plan, due to the closure of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 in April 2016, which would be recovered through the FAC. As of June 30, 2015, the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 was $95 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.

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

2014 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In April 2015, the OCC issued an order that approved a non-unanimous stipulation agreement between PSO, the OCC staff and certain intervenors. The approved stipulation provides for no overall change to the transmission rider or to annual revenues, other than additional revenues through a separate rider related to advanced metering costs, and that the terms of the stipulation be effective November 2014. The advanced metering rider provides $24 million of revenues over 14 months beginning in November 2014 and increases to $27 million in 2016. The stipulation also included (a) new depreciation rates for advanced metering investments and existing meters, also effective November 2014, (b) a return on common equity of 9.85% to be used only in the formula to calculate AFUDC, factoring of customer receivables and for riders with an equity component and (c) recovery of regulatory assets for 2013 storms and regulatory case expenses. The advanced metering cost rider was implemented in November 2014.

I&M Rate Matters

Tanners Creek Plant

In October 2014, I&M filed an application with the IURC seeking approval of revised depreciation rates for Rockport Plant, Unit 1 and the Tanners Creek Plant. Upon retirement of the Tanners Creek Plant, I&M proposed that, for purposes of determining its depreciation rates, the net book value of the Tanners Creek Plant be recovered over the remaining life of the Rockport Plant. The new depreciation rates would result in a decrease in I&M's Indiana jurisdictional electric depreciation expense which I&M proposed to reduce customer rates through a credit rider. In May 2015, the IURC issued an order approving I&M's request for revised depreciation rates.

In May 2015, Tanners Creek Plant was retired. Upon retirement, $265 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet related to the net book value of Tanners Creek Plant and is being amortized over 29 years. An additional $38 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the condensed balance sheet for related asset retirement obligations and materials and supplies. These additional regulatory assets are currently not being amortized, pending regulatory approval.

Transmission, Distribution and Storage System Improvement Charge (TDSIC)

In October 2014, I&M filed petitions with the IURC for approval of a TDSIC Rider and approval of I&M’s seven-year TDSIC Plan, from 2015 through 2021, for eligible transmission, distribution and storage system improvements. The initial estimated cost of the capital improvements and associated operation and maintenance expenses included in the TDSIC Plan of $787 million, excluding AFUDC, would be updated annually. The TDSIC Plan included distribution investments specific to the Indiana jurisdiction. The TDSIC Rider would allow the periodic adjustment of I&M's rates to provide for timely recovery of 80% of approved TDSIC Plan costs. I&M would defer the remaining 20% of approved TDSIC Plan costs to be recovered in I&M's next general rate case. I&M did not seek a rate adjustment in this proceeding but sought approval of a TDSIC Rider rate adjustment mechanism for subsequent proceedings. In April 2015, I&M filed a notice with the IURC to seek approval of the proposed TDSIC Plan excluding $117 million of certain projects that were challenged in this proceeding. In May 2015, the IURC issued an order that denied I&M's TDSIC Plan and Rider. In May 2015, I&M filed a petition for reconsideration and/or rehearing with the IURC and in June 2015, filed a notice of appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals.