Rate Matters

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Rate Matters

RATE MATTERS

The disclosures in this note apply to all Registrants unless indicated otherwise.

As discussed in the 2015 Annual Report, the Registrants are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. The Rate Matters note within the 2015 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 2016 and updates the 2015 Annual Report.

Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval

	AEP
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	161.9	$	—
Storm Related Costs	24.5		24.2
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	20.8		20.9
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.1		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	56.7		59.8
Storm Related Costs	24.3		18.2
Peak Demand Reduction/Energy Efficiency	0.6		13.1
Cook Plant Turbine	11.2		9.7
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	29.9		22.0
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	331.0	$	167.9

	APCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	$	9.2	$	9.3
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	29.6		32.7
Peak Demand Reduction/Energy Efficiency - Virginia	—		12.7
Amos Plant Transfer Costs - West Virginia	—		2.0
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.6		0.6
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	39.4	$	57.3

	I&M
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	$	11.6	$	11.6
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs - Indiana	27.1		27.1
Cook Plant Turbine	11.2		9.7
Deferred Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project Costs - Michigan	6.2		4.2
Rockport Dry Sorbent Injection System - Indiana	4.5		2.8
Stranded Costs on Retired Plant	3.9		3.9
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.4		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	64.9	$	59.3

	OPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
gridSMART® Costs	$	3.0	$	1.3
OVEC Purchased Power	2.5		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	5.5	$	1.3

	PSO
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	86.5	$	—
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	0.5		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm Related Costs	18.0		12.3
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.4		1.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	106.4	$	13.4

	SWEPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	75.4	$	—
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	0.5		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Shipe Road Transmission Project - FERC	3.1		3.1
Asset Retirement Obligation - Arkansas, Louisiana	2.2		1.7
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.6		1.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	82.8	$	5.9

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

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

2016 West Virginia Expanded Net Energy Cost Filing

In March 2016, APCo and WPCo filed their combined annual ENEC filing with the WVPSC requesting an increase in ENEC rates of $108 million ($86 million related to APCo) to be effective July 2016. The increase primarily relates to recovery of the December 2015 under-recovered ENEC deferral balance and the recovery of costs associated with the continuation and expansion of certain transmission and generation construction projects.

In June 2016, APCo, WPCo and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the WVPSC. The proposed settlement included $38 million ($30 million related to APCo) of additional ENEC revenues and $17 million ($14 million related to APCo) in construction surcharges annually for two years, effective July 2016. Additionally, APCo and WPCo agreed that a general rate case will not be filed before April 2018. In June 2016, the WVPSC approved the settlement agreement.

West Virginia Deferred Base Rate Increase

In May 2015, the WVPSC issued an order on APCo and WPCo’s combined base rate case. The order included a delayed billing of $25 million ($22 million related to APCo) of the annual base rate increase to residential customers until July 2016. The order provided for carrying charges based upon a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) rate for the $25 million annual delayed billing through June 2016. In February 2016, APCo and WPCo filed a petition with the WVPSC to implement recovery of the unrecognized delayed billing totaling $29 million ($26 million related to APCo), which included carrying charges through June 2016. Recovery of the delayed billing was requested over two years, beginning July 2016, with the unpaid principal subject to carrying charges.

In June 2016, the WVPSC issued an order that approved recovery of the total deferred billing, including carrying charges through June 2018, totaling $29 million ($27 million related to APCo). Recovery was approved over two years, effective July 2016. Additionally, at the end of the two-year amortization, any over/under-recovery of the delay billing will be included in the annual ENEC filing. The WVPSC also approved implementation of the prospective $25 million base rate increase effective July 2016.

2015 Virginia Regulatory Asset Proceeding

In 2015, the Virginia SCC initiated a proceeding to address the proper treatment of APCo’s authorized regulatory assets. Briefs related to this proceeding were filed by various parties. The Virginia SCC has no statutory deadline to issue its decision in this proceeding. As of June 30, 2016, APCo’s authorized regulatory assets under review in this proceeding were $7 million. 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.

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 amendments provide 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 asset impairments related to new carbon emission guidelines issued by the Federal EPA.

In February 2016, certain APCo industrial customers filed a petition with the Virginia SCC requesting the issuance of a declaratory order that finds the amendments to Virginia law suspending biennial reviews unconstitutional and, accordingly, directs APCo to make biennial review filings beginning in 2016. In February 2016, APCo filed a motion to stay the Virginia SCC’s consideration of the petition due to a pending appeal at the Supreme Court of Virginia by industrial customers of a non-related utility regarding the constitutionality of the amendments. In May 2016, these industrial customers withdrew their appeal at the Supreme Court of Virginia. In July 2016, the Virginia SCC issued an order that denied the petition filed by the APCo industrial customers. Also in July 2016, these APCo industrial customers filed with the Virginia SCC a Notice of Appeal of the order to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

ETT Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

ETT Interim Transmission Rates

Parent has a 50% equity ownership interest in ETT. Predominantly all of ETT’s revenues are based on interim rate changes that can be filed twice annually and are subject to review and possible true-up in the next filed base rate proceeding. As of June 30, 2016, AEP’s share of ETT’s cumulative revenues, subject to review, is estimated to be $505 million based upon interim rate increases received from 2009 through 2015. In November 2015, the PUCT ordered ETT to file a base rate case by February 2017. A base rate review could produce a refund if ETT incurs a disallowance of the transmission investment on which an interim increase was based. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring. A refund of interim transmission rates could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

KGPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

Kingsport Base Rate Case

In January 2016, KGPCo filed a request with the TRA to increase base rates by $12 million annually based upon a proposed return on common equity of 10.66%. In June 2016, intervenor testimony was filed at the TRA. Intervenor testimony recommended a $7 million annual increase in base rates with an 8.8% return on common equity. A hearing at the TRA is scheduled for August 2016. If KGPCo does not recover its costs, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

OPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and OPCo)

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 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate proceeding which implemented a PIRR to recover OPCo’s 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 WACC rate. In June 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision that reversed the PUCO order on the carrying cost rate issue. In October 2015 this matter was remanded back to the PUCO for reinstatement of the WACC rate.

In May 2016, OPCo filed a proposed increase to the PIRR rates with the PUCO, in accordance with the June 2015 Supreme Court of Ohio ruling. The proposed increase to PIRR rates included $146 million in additional carrying charges and $40 million in additional under-recovered fuel costs resulting from a decrease in customer demand. OPCo requested the proposed increase be effective July 2016 through December 2018. In June 2016, the PUCO issued an order that approved OPCo’s proposed increase to the PIRR rates.

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. In 2013, this ruling was generally upheld in PUCO rehearing orders.

In July 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate capacity proceeding requiring OPCo to 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 included reserve margins, was approximately $34/MW day through May 2014 and $150/MW day from June 2014 through May 2015. In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued two opinions related to the deferral of OPCo’s capacity charges. In one of the opinions, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the PUCO must reconsider an energy credit that was used to determine OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold of $188.88/MW day during the August 2012 through May 2015 period. The PUCO reduced OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold to $188.88/MW day largely due to an offset for an energy credit of $147.41/MW day. The Supreme Court of Ohio directed the PUCO to substantively address OPCo’s arguments that the $147.41/MW day credit was overstated by approximately$100/MW day due to various inaccuracies affecting input data and assumptions.

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 April 2015, the PUCO issued an order that modified and approved OPCo’s July 2014 application to collect the unrecovered portion of the deferred capacity costs. 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. As of June 30, 2016, OPCo’s net deferred capacity costs balance of $285 million, including debt carrying costs, was recorded in Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet. In April 2016, the second Supreme Court of Ohio opinion rejected a portion of OPCo’s RSR revenues collected during the period September 2012 through May 2015 and directed the PUCO to reduce OPCo’s deferred capacity costs by these previously collected RSR revenues. The Supreme Court of Ohio was not able to determine the amount of the reduction to OPCo’s deferred capacity costs and remanded the issue to the PUCO to determine the appropriate reduction. As directed by the PUCO, in May 2016, OPCo submitted revised RSR tariffs that reflect the RSR being collected subject to refund.

In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio also ruled favorably on OPCo’s cross-appeal regarding a previously PUCO-imposed SEET threshold under the ESP and remanded this issue to the PUCO. See “Significantly Excessive Earnings Test Filings” section below.

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 November 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo’s competitive bid process with modifications. 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 with the PUCO for the period August 2012 through May 2015. 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.

In June 2016, OPCo filed a request with the PUCO that requested a consolidated procedural schedule to resolve interrelated proceedings including (a) OPCo’s deferral of capacity costs for the period August 2012 through May 2015, (b) the implementation of OPCo’s RSR and (c) the concerns related to the recovery of fixed fuel costs through both the FAC and the approved capacity charges. As part of the filing, OPCo requested that its net deferred capacity costs balance as of May 31, 2015 increase by $157 million, including carrying charges through September 2016. This net increase consists of a $327 million decrease due to the non-deferral portion of the RSR collections and an increase of $484 million for the correction of the energy credit. Recovery of the $157 million was requested to be effective October 2016 through December 2018. Additionally, OPCo filed testimony supporting the position that double recovery of fixed fuel costs could not have occurred because OPCo was unable to fully recover its capacity costs, which included fixed fuel costs, even with a corrected energy credit.

Due to the interrelated nature of these two Supreme Court of Ohio opinions that directly relate to OPCo’s deferred capacity costs, management believes that the PUCO will rule upon these issues together. Further, management believes that the net impact of these issues will not result in a material future reduction of OPCo’s net income.

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 Including PPA Application and Proposed ESP Extension through 2024

In 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 also included a 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 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, the PUCO issued an order on rehearing that increased the DIR rate caps and deferred ruling on all requests for rehearing related to the establishment of the PPA rider. In July 2015, the PUCO granted OPCo’s and various intervenors’ requests for rehearing related to the May 2015 order.

In May 2015, OPCo filed an amended PPA application that (a) included OPCo’s OVEC contractual entitlement (OVEC PPA), (b) addressed the PPA requirements set forth in the PUCO’s February 2015 order and (c) included the 2,671 MW to be available for capacity, energy and ancillary services, produced by AGR over the lives of the respective generating units (Affiliate PPA).

In March 2016, a contested stipulation agreement related to the PPA rider application was modified and approved by the PUCO. The approved PPA rider is effective April 2016 through May 2024, with quarterly PPA rider reconciliations to actual PPA costs compared to PJM market revenues, subject to audit and review by the PUCO. The stipulation agreement, as approved, included:

(a) an Affiliate PPA between OPCo and AGR to be included in the PPA rider,

(b) OPCo’s OVEC PPA to be included in the PPA rider,

(c) potential additional contingent customer credits of up to $100 million to be included in the PPA rider over the final four years of the PPA rider,

(d) a temporary customer-specific rate impact cap of 5% through May 2018,

(e) an agreement to retire, refuel or repower to 100% natural gas, Conesville Plant, Units 5 and 6 and Cardinal Plant, Unit 1 by 2029 and 2030, respectively,

(f) a directive that OPCo will not seek recovery from customers for any costs associated with the retirement, refueling, co-firing or repowering of PPA units,

(g) the limitation that OPCo will not flow through any capacity performance penalties or bonuses through the PPA rider,

(h) the right for the PUCO to exclude costs associated with a forced outage lasting longer than 90 days and

(i) the right for the PUCO to re-evaluate or modify the PPA rider if there is a change to PJM’s tariffs or rules that prohibits a PPA unit from being bid into PJM auctions.

Additionally, subject to cost recovery and PUCO approval, OPCo agreed to develop and implement, by 2021, a solar energy project(s) of at least 400 MW and a wind energy project(s) of at least 500 MW, with 100% of all output to be received by OPCo. AEP affiliates could own up to 50% of these solar and wind projects. OPCo agreed to file a carbon reduction plan with the PUCO by December 2016 that will focus on fuel diversification and carbon emission reductions.

In March 2016, a group of merchant generation owners filed a complaint at the FERC against PJM seeking revisions to the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) in PJM’s tariff. Although the complaint requested the FERC act in advance of the May 2016 Base Residual Auction for the 2019/2020 delivery year, the complaint is still pending without a decision from the FERC. If approved as proposed, the revised MOPR could affect future bidding behavior for units with cost recovery mechanisms.

In April 2016, the FERC issued an order granting a January 2016 complaint filed against AGR and OPCo.  The FERC order rescinded the waivers of the FERC’s affiliate rules as to the Affiliate PPA between AGR and OPCo.  As a result, AGR and OPCo cannot implement the Affiliate PPA without the FERC review, in accordance with FERC’s rules governing affiliate transactions.  As a result of the April 2016 FERC order, management does not intend to pursue the Affiliate PPA.

In May 2016, OPCo filed an application for rehearing with the PUCO related to certain aspects of the March 2016 PUCO order. The application included a proposed OVEC-only PPA Rider that included an option for the rider to be bypassable. The proposed OVEC-only PPA Rider included (a) the elimination of the PUCO-imposed customer-specific rate impact cap of 5% through May 2018, (b) modifications to proportionately decrease the amount of the potential customer credits and (c) the inclusion of PJM capacity performance penalties within the PPA rider. Also in May 2016, intervenors filed applications for rehearing with the PUCO opposing the modified and approved stipulation agreement.

Management seeks to maintain, subject to requested modifications, the commitments approved as part of the original PPA order despite the fact that the proposed Affiliate PPA is no longer included following the FERC’s order rescinding the waiver of affiliate rules. OPCo has the option to exercise its right to withdraw from the PPA stipulation at any time.

Consistent with the terms of the modified and approved stipulation agreement, in May 2016, OPCo filed an amended ESP that proposed to extend the ESP through May 2024. The amended ESP included (a) an extension of the PPA rider, which includes only OPCo’s entitlements to its ownership percentage of OVEC, (b) a proposed 10.41% return on common equity, (c) the continuation of riders previously approved in the June 2015 - May 2018 ESP, (d) proposed increases in rate caps related to OPCo’s DIR and (e) the addition of various new riders, including a Generation Resource Rider.

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

Background

Ohio law provides for the return of significantly excessive earnings to ratepayers upon PUCO review. Significantly excessive earnings are measured by whether the earned return on common equity of the electric distribution utility is significantly in excess of the return on common equity that was earned during the same period by publicly traded companies, including utilities, that face comparable business and financial risk.

2009 SEET Filing

In 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 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^® (gridSMART^® Phase II) program was filed with the PUCO which included a proposed project to satisfy the PUCO 2009 SEET directive. In April 2016, a stipulation agreement related to the gridSMART^® Phase II program was filed with the PUCO. As part of the stipulation agreement, OPCo will invest at least $20 million over a six-year period for the installation of Volt VAR Optimization (VVO) technology on selected circuits throughout OPCo’s service territory. All parties to the stipulation agree that OPCo’s proposed VVO investment resolves OPCo’s outstanding obligation for renewable or similar investment associated with the PUCO’s 2009 SEET directive. A hearing at the PUCO is scheduled for August 2016.

2014 SEET Filing

The PUCO established an annual SEET earnings threshold of 12% during the June 2012 - May 2015 ESP period. In May 2013, OPCo filed a cross appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio, asserting that the SEET threshold would not be based on the earnings of comparable publicly traded companies as originally required by the SEET statute. In June 2015, OPCo submitted its SEET filings for 2014 with the PUCO.

In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with OPCo’s cross-appeal assertion that a 12% SEET threshold was not based on the applicable Ohio SEET statute. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the 12% threshold and remanded this issue to the PUCO. A hearing at the PUCO is scheduled for September 2016. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of 2014 SEET requirements.

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. In OPCo’s 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 filing to approve recovery of the deferral under the interim agreement.

To the extent amounts discussed above are refunded to customers, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

PSO Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and PSO)

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 of 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 common equity of 10.5% effective in January 2016. The proposed $44 million increase related to environmental investments was effective in March 2016, after the Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls were placed 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, 2016, PSO had incurred costs of $179 million and $41 million, including AFUDC, for Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and Comanche Plant, respectively.

In addition, the filing also notified the OCC that the incremental replacement capacity and energy costs, including the first year effects of new PPAs, estimated to be $35 million, will be incurred related to the environmental compliance plan due to the closure of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, which would be recovered through the FAC. In April 2016, Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 was retired. Upon retirement, $87 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4. These regulatory assets are pending regulatory approval.

In October 2015, testimony was filed by OCC staff and intervenors with recommendations that included increases to base rates and/or the proposed environmental rider ranging from $10 million to $31 million, based upon returns on common equity ranging from 8.75% to 9.3%, and increases to depreciation expense ranging from $23 million to $46 million. Additionally, recommendations by certain intervenors included (a) no recovery of PSO’s investment in Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls, (b) no recovery of the plant balances at the time the units are retired in 2016 and 2026, (c) denial of returns on the book values after the retirement dates, or to be set at only the cost of debt, and (d) the disallowance of the capacity costs associated with the PPAs. Additionally, some intervenors recommended no change in depreciation lives for Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4. These units are currently being depreciated through 2040. Hearings at the OCC were held in December 2015. In January 2016, PSO implemented an interim annual base rate increase of $75 million. These interim rates are subject to refund pending a final order from the OCC related to the initial $137 million request.

In June 2016, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a report related to PSO’s base rate case filing. The ALJ recommended a 9.25% return on common equity. The ALJ found that PSO’s environmental compliance plan is prudent, but had conflicting recommendations regarding cost recovery in this case and recommended an investment cap of $210 million on environmental controls installed at Northeastern Plant, Unit 3. Additionally, the ALJ recommendations included (a) a $17 million increase in depreciation expense, (b) continued depreciation of Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4 through 2040 (no accelerated depreciation), (c) return of, but no return on, the remaining net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, (d) disallowance of the requested environmental consumables through the FAC indicating that these amounts are not considered fuel and should be recovered through base rates in the next base rate case, (e) elimination of the rider to recover advanced metering starting in December 2016, without inclusion in base rates and (f) elimination of the system reliability rider through consolidation in base rates, without addressing a transition for recovery of rider costs, including deferred costs.

In June 2016, PSO, the OCC staff, the Attorney General and intervenors filed exceptions to the ALJ report. PSO’s response included numerous exceptions related to the ALJ recommendations including the lack of a return on the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4. Additionally, PSO requested the OCC remand the report for further clarification. The OCC staff filed exceptions that supported the full recovery of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 and recommended a $32 million increase in annual revenues. In July 2016, the OCC ordered the ALJ to submit a supplemental report clarifying the recommendations.

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

SWEPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and SWEPCo)

2012 Texas Base Rate Case

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

Upon rehearing in 2014, the PUCT reversed its initial ruling and determined that AFUDC was excluded from the Turk Plant’s Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap. As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2013, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of previously recorded regulatory disallowances. The resulting annual base rate increase was approximately $52 million. In May 2014, intervenors filed appeals of that order with the Texas District Court. In June 2014, SWEPCo intervened in those appeals.

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, 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 prudence review of the Turk Plant. The settlement also provided that the LPSC would review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo would 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. A hearing at the LPSC related to the Turk Plant prudence review is scheduled for November 2016. 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 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 used to serve Louisiana customers in 2015 due to the expiration of a purchased 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, subject to staff review of the cost of service and prudence review of the Turk Plant. In July 2016, the LPSC approved a settlement agreement related to the staff review of the cost of service. A portion of the rates remain subject to refund based on the prudence review of the Turk Plant, see “2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing” above. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of this settlement agreement. 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.

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 was 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 - Environmental Impact

Management currently estimates that the investment necessary to meet proposed environmental regulations through 2025 for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 could cost approximately $850 million, excluding AFUDC. As part of this investment, SWEPCo has completed construction of the environmental control projects to meet Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 at a cost of approximately $370 million, excluding AFUDC.  Management continues to evaluate the impact of environmental rules and related project cost estimates. As of June 30, 2016, SWEPCo had incurred costs of $389 million, including AFUDC, and had remaining contractual construction obligations of $20 million related to these projects.  In March 2016, SWEPCo filed a request with the APSC to recover $69 million in environmental costs related to the Arkansas retail jurisdictional share of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3. SWEPCo began recovering the Arkansas jurisdictional share of these costs in March 2016, subject to review in the next filed base rate proceeding. SWEPCo will seek recovery of the remaining project costs from customers at the state commissions and the FERC.

As of June 30, 2016, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $631 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.  In April 2016, Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was retired. Upon retirement, $76 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2 and the related asset retirement obligation costs. Management will seek recovery of the remaining regulatory assets in future rate proceedings.

If any of these costs are not recoverable, including retirement-related costs for Welsh Plant, Unit 2, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

TCC Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

TCC Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF)

In April 2016, TCC filed a request with the PUCT for approval of a DCRF rider to allow recovery of eligible net distribution investments.  The request included a revenue requirement of $54 million to be effective September 2016.  Amounts approved would be subject to refund based upon a prudence review of the investments in TCC’s next base rate case. In June 2016, TCC and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the PUCT. The settlement agreement included a proposed annual revenue requirement of $45 million, effective September 2016. In July 2016, the PUCT approved the settlement agreement.

TNC Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

TNC Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF)

In April 2016, TNC filed a request with the PUCT for approval of a DCRF rider to allow recovery of eligible net distribution investments. The request included a revenue requirement of $16 million to be effective September 2016. Amounts approved would be subject to refund based upon a prudence review of the investments in TNC’s next base rate case. In June 2016, TNC and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the PUCT. The settlement agreement included a proposed annual revenue requirement of $11 million, effective September 2016. In July 2016, the PUCT approved the settlement agreement.

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

SPP Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) Upgrade Costs

Under the SPP OATT, costs of sponsor-funded transmission upgrades may be recovered, in part, from SPP customers whose transmission service is dependent upon capacity enabled by the upgrades. SPP has not charged its customers any amounts attributable to these upgrades. SPP indicated that the impact to customers will be quantified and charges will be implemented in the second half of 2016, including amounts for prior periods. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that are reasonably possible of occurring.

Appalachian Power Co [Member]

Rate Matters

RATE MATTERS

The disclosures in this note apply to all Registrants unless indicated otherwise.

As discussed in the 2015 Annual Report, the Registrants are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. The Rate Matters note within the 2015 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 2016 and updates the 2015 Annual Report.

Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval

	AEP
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	161.9	$	—
Storm Related Costs	24.5		24.2
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	20.8		20.9
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.1		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	56.7		59.8
Storm Related Costs	24.3		18.2
Peak Demand Reduction/Energy Efficiency	0.6		13.1
Cook Plant Turbine	11.2		9.7
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	29.9		22.0
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	331.0	$	167.9

	APCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	$	9.2	$	9.3
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	29.6		32.7
Peak Demand Reduction/Energy Efficiency - Virginia	—		12.7
Amos Plant Transfer Costs - West Virginia	—		2.0
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.6		0.6
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	39.4	$	57.3

	I&M
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	$	11.6	$	11.6
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs - Indiana	27.1		27.1
Cook Plant Turbine	11.2		9.7
Deferred Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project Costs - Michigan	6.2		4.2
Rockport Dry Sorbent Injection System - Indiana	4.5		2.8
Stranded Costs on Retired Plant	3.9		3.9
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.4		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	64.9	$	59.3

	OPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
gridSMART® Costs	$	3.0	$	1.3
OVEC Purchased Power	2.5		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	5.5	$	1.3

	PSO
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	86.5	$	—
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	0.5		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm Related Costs	18.0		12.3
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.4		1.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	106.4	$	13.4

	SWEPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	75.4	$	—
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	0.5		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Shipe Road Transmission Project - FERC	3.1		3.1
Asset Retirement Obligation - Arkansas, Louisiana	2.2		1.7
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.6		1.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	82.8	$	5.9

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

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

2016 West Virginia Expanded Net Energy Cost Filing

In March 2016, APCo and WPCo filed their combined annual ENEC filing with the WVPSC requesting an increase in ENEC rates of $108 million ($86 million related to APCo) to be effective July 2016. The increase primarily relates to recovery of the December 2015 under-recovered ENEC deferral balance and the recovery of costs associated with the continuation and expansion of certain transmission and generation construction projects.

In June 2016, APCo, WPCo and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the WVPSC. The proposed settlement included $38 million ($30 million related to APCo) of additional ENEC revenues and $17 million ($14 million related to APCo) in construction surcharges annually for two years, effective July 2016. Additionally, APCo and WPCo agreed that a general rate case will not be filed before April 2018. In June 2016, the WVPSC approved the settlement agreement.

West Virginia Deferred Base Rate Increase

In May 2015, the WVPSC issued an order on APCo and WPCo’s combined base rate case. The order included a delayed billing of $25 million ($22 million related to APCo) of the annual base rate increase to residential customers until July 2016. The order provided for carrying charges based upon a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) rate for the $25 million annual delayed billing through June 2016. In February 2016, APCo and WPCo filed a petition with the WVPSC to implement recovery of the unrecognized delayed billing totaling $29 million ($26 million related to APCo), which included carrying charges through June 2016. Recovery of the delayed billing was requested over two years, beginning July 2016, with the unpaid principal subject to carrying charges.

In June 2016, the WVPSC issued an order that approved recovery of the total deferred billing, including carrying charges through June 2018, totaling $29 million ($27 million related to APCo). Recovery was approved over two years, effective July 2016. Additionally, at the end of the two-year amortization, any over/under-recovery of the delay billing will be included in the annual ENEC filing. The WVPSC also approved implementation of the prospective $25 million base rate increase effective July 2016.

2015 Virginia Regulatory Asset Proceeding

In 2015, the Virginia SCC initiated a proceeding to address the proper treatment of APCo’s authorized regulatory assets. Briefs related to this proceeding were filed by various parties. The Virginia SCC has no statutory deadline to issue its decision in this proceeding. As of June 30, 2016, APCo’s authorized regulatory assets under review in this proceeding were $7 million. 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.

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 amendments provide 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 asset impairments related to new carbon emission guidelines issued by the Federal EPA.

In February 2016, certain APCo industrial customers filed a petition with the Virginia SCC requesting the issuance of a declaratory order that finds the amendments to Virginia law suspending biennial reviews unconstitutional and, accordingly, directs APCo to make biennial review filings beginning in 2016. In February 2016, APCo filed a motion to stay the Virginia SCC’s consideration of the petition due to a pending appeal at the Supreme Court of Virginia by industrial customers of a non-related utility regarding the constitutionality of the amendments. In May 2016, these industrial customers withdrew their appeal at the Supreme Court of Virginia. In July 2016, the Virginia SCC issued an order that denied the petition filed by the APCo industrial customers. Also in July 2016, these APCo industrial customers filed with the Virginia SCC a Notice of Appeal of the order to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

ETT Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

ETT Interim Transmission Rates

Parent has a 50% equity ownership interest in ETT. Predominantly all of ETT’s revenues are based on interim rate changes that can be filed twice annually and are subject to review and possible true-up in the next filed base rate proceeding. As of June 30, 2016, AEP’s share of ETT’s cumulative revenues, subject to review, is estimated to be $505 million based upon interim rate increases received from 2009 through 2015. In November 2015, the PUCT ordered ETT to file a base rate case by February 2017. A base rate review could produce a refund if ETT incurs a disallowance of the transmission investment on which an interim increase was based. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring. A refund of interim transmission rates could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

KGPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

Kingsport Base Rate Case

In January 2016, KGPCo filed a request with the TRA to increase base rates by $12 million annually based upon a proposed return on common equity of 10.66%. In June 2016, intervenor testimony was filed at the TRA. Intervenor testimony recommended a $7 million annual increase in base rates with an 8.8% return on common equity. A hearing at the TRA is scheduled for August 2016. If KGPCo does not recover its costs, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

OPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and OPCo)

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 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate proceeding which implemented a PIRR to recover OPCo’s 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 WACC rate. In June 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision that reversed the PUCO order on the carrying cost rate issue. In October 2015 this matter was remanded back to the PUCO for reinstatement of the WACC rate.

In May 2016, OPCo filed a proposed increase to the PIRR rates with the PUCO, in accordance with the June 2015 Supreme Court of Ohio ruling. The proposed increase to PIRR rates included $146 million in additional carrying charges and $40 million in additional under-recovered fuel costs resulting from a decrease in customer demand. OPCo requested the proposed increase be effective July 2016 through December 2018. In June 2016, the PUCO issued an order that approved OPCo’s proposed increase to the PIRR rates.

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. In 2013, this ruling was generally upheld in PUCO rehearing orders.

In July 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate capacity proceeding requiring OPCo to 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 included reserve margins, was approximately $34/MW day through May 2014 and $150/MW day from June 2014 through May 2015. In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued two opinions related to the deferral of OPCo’s capacity charges. In one of the opinions, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the PUCO must reconsider an energy credit that was used to determine OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold of $188.88/MW day during the August 2012 through May 2015 period. The PUCO reduced OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold to $188.88/MW day largely due to an offset for an energy credit of $147.41/MW day. The Supreme Court of Ohio directed the PUCO to substantively address OPCo’s arguments that the $147.41/MW day credit was overstated by approximately$100/MW day due to various inaccuracies affecting input data and assumptions.

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 April 2015, the PUCO issued an order that modified and approved OPCo’s July 2014 application to collect the unrecovered portion of the deferred capacity costs. 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. As of June 30, 2016, OPCo’s net deferred capacity costs balance of $285 million, including debt carrying costs, was recorded in Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet. In April 2016, the second Supreme Court of Ohio opinion rejected a portion of OPCo’s RSR revenues collected during the period September 2012 through May 2015 and directed the PUCO to reduce OPCo’s deferred capacity costs by these previously collected RSR revenues. The Supreme Court of Ohio was not able to determine the amount of the reduction to OPCo’s deferred capacity costs and remanded the issue to the PUCO to determine the appropriate reduction. As directed by the PUCO, in May 2016, OPCo submitted revised RSR tariffs that reflect the RSR being collected subject to refund.

In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio also ruled favorably on OPCo’s cross-appeal regarding a previously PUCO-imposed SEET threshold under the ESP and remanded this issue to the PUCO. See “Significantly Excessive Earnings Test Filings” section below.

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 November 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo’s competitive bid process with modifications. 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 with the PUCO for the period August 2012 through May 2015. 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.

In June 2016, OPCo filed a request with the PUCO that requested a consolidated procedural schedule to resolve interrelated proceedings including (a) OPCo’s deferral of capacity costs for the period August 2012 through May 2015, (b) the implementation of OPCo’s RSR and (c) the concerns related to the recovery of fixed fuel costs through both the FAC and the approved capacity charges. As part of the filing, OPCo requested that its net deferred capacity costs balance as of May 31, 2015 increase by $157 million, including carrying charges through September 2016. This net increase consists of a $327 million decrease due to the non-deferral portion of the RSR collections and an increase of $484 million for the correction of the energy credit. Recovery of the $157 million was requested to be effective October 2016 through December 2018. Additionally, OPCo filed testimony supporting the position that double recovery of fixed fuel costs could not have occurred because OPCo was unable to fully recover its capacity costs, which included fixed fuel costs, even with a corrected energy credit.

Due to the interrelated nature of these two Supreme Court of Ohio opinions that directly relate to OPCo’s deferred capacity costs, management believes that the PUCO will rule upon these issues together. Further, management believes that the net impact of these issues will not result in a material future reduction of OPCo’s net income.

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 Including PPA Application and Proposed ESP Extension through 2024

In 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 also included a 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 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, the PUCO issued an order on rehearing that increased the DIR rate caps and deferred ruling on all requests for rehearing related to the establishment of the PPA rider. In July 2015, the PUCO granted OPCo’s and various intervenors’ requests for rehearing related to the May 2015 order.

In May 2015, OPCo filed an amended PPA application that (a) included OPCo’s OVEC contractual entitlement (OVEC PPA), (b) addressed the PPA requirements set forth in the PUCO’s February 2015 order and (c) included the 2,671 MW to be available for capacity, energy and ancillary services, produced by AGR over the lives of the respective generating units (Affiliate PPA).

In March 2016, a contested stipulation agreement related to the PPA rider application was modified and approved by the PUCO. The approved PPA rider is effective April 2016 through May 2024, with quarterly PPA rider reconciliations to actual PPA costs compared to PJM market revenues, subject to audit and review by the PUCO. The stipulation agreement, as approved, included:

(a) an Affiliate PPA between OPCo and AGR to be included in the PPA rider,

(b) OPCo’s OVEC PPA to be included in the PPA rider,

(c) potential additional contingent customer credits of up to $100 million to be included in the PPA rider over the final four years of the PPA rider,

(d) a temporary customer-specific rate impact cap of 5% through May 2018,

(e) an agreement to retire, refuel or repower to 100% natural gas, Conesville Plant, Units 5 and 6 and Cardinal Plant, Unit 1 by 2029 and 2030, respectively,

(f) a directive that OPCo will not seek recovery from customers for any costs associated with the retirement, refueling, co-firing or repowering of PPA units,

(g) the limitation that OPCo will not flow through any capacity performance penalties or bonuses through the PPA rider,

(h) the right for the PUCO to exclude costs associated with a forced outage lasting longer than 90 days and

(i) the right for the PUCO to re-evaluate or modify the PPA rider if there is a change to PJM’s tariffs or rules that prohibits a PPA unit from being bid into PJM auctions.

Additionally, subject to cost recovery and PUCO approval, OPCo agreed to develop and implement, by 2021, a solar energy project(s) of at least 400 MW and a wind energy project(s) of at least 500 MW, with 100% of all output to be received by OPCo. AEP affiliates could own up to 50% of these solar and wind projects. OPCo agreed to file a carbon reduction plan with the PUCO by December 2016 that will focus on fuel diversification and carbon emission reductions.

In March 2016, a group of merchant generation owners filed a complaint at the FERC against PJM seeking revisions to the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) in PJM’s tariff. Although the complaint requested the FERC act in advance of the May 2016 Base Residual Auction for the 2019/2020 delivery year, the complaint is still pending without a decision from the FERC. If approved as proposed, the revised MOPR could affect future bidding behavior for units with cost recovery mechanisms.

In April 2016, the FERC issued an order granting a January 2016 complaint filed against AGR and OPCo.  The FERC order rescinded the waivers of the FERC’s affiliate rules as to the Affiliate PPA between AGR and OPCo.  As a result, AGR and OPCo cannot implement the Affiliate PPA without the FERC review, in accordance with FERC’s rules governing affiliate transactions.  As a result of the April 2016 FERC order, management does not intend to pursue the Affiliate PPA.

In May 2016, OPCo filed an application for rehearing with the PUCO related to certain aspects of the March 2016 PUCO order. The application included a proposed OVEC-only PPA Rider that included an option for the rider to be bypassable. The proposed OVEC-only PPA Rider included (a) the elimination of the PUCO-imposed customer-specific rate impact cap of 5% through May 2018, (b) modifications to proportionately decrease the amount of the potential customer credits and (c) the inclusion of PJM capacity performance penalties within the PPA rider. Also in May 2016, intervenors filed applications for rehearing with the PUCO opposing the modified and approved stipulation agreement.

Management seeks to maintain, subject to requested modifications, the commitments approved as part of the original PPA order despite the fact that the proposed Affiliate PPA is no longer included following the FERC’s order rescinding the waiver of affiliate rules. OPCo has the option to exercise its right to withdraw from the PPA stipulation at any time.

Consistent with the terms of the modified and approved stipulation agreement, in May 2016, OPCo filed an amended ESP that proposed to extend the ESP through May 2024. The amended ESP included (a) an extension of the PPA rider, which includes only OPCo’s entitlements to its ownership percentage of OVEC, (b) a proposed 10.41% return on common equity, (c) the continuation of riders previously approved in the June 2015 - May 2018 ESP, (d) proposed increases in rate caps related to OPCo’s DIR and (e) the addition of various new riders, including a Generation Resource Rider.

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

Background

Ohio law provides for the return of significantly excessive earnings to ratepayers upon PUCO review. Significantly excessive earnings are measured by whether the earned return on common equity of the electric distribution utility is significantly in excess of the return on common equity that was earned during the same period by publicly traded companies, including utilities, that face comparable business and financial risk.

2009 SEET Filing

In 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 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^® (gridSMART^® Phase II) program was filed with the PUCO which included a proposed project to satisfy the PUCO 2009 SEET directive. In April 2016, a stipulation agreement related to the gridSMART^® Phase II program was filed with the PUCO. As part of the stipulation agreement, OPCo will invest at least $20 million over a six-year period for the installation of Volt VAR Optimization (VVO) technology on selected circuits throughout OPCo’s service territory. All parties to the stipulation agree that OPCo’s proposed VVO investment resolves OPCo’s outstanding obligation for renewable or similar investment associated with the PUCO’s 2009 SEET directive. A hearing at the PUCO is scheduled for August 2016.

2014 SEET Filing

The PUCO established an annual SEET earnings threshold of 12% during the June 2012 - May 2015 ESP period. In May 2013, OPCo filed a cross appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio, asserting that the SEET threshold would not be based on the earnings of comparable publicly traded companies as originally required by the SEET statute. In June 2015, OPCo submitted its SEET filings for 2014 with the PUCO.

In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with OPCo’s cross-appeal assertion that a 12% SEET threshold was not based on the applicable Ohio SEET statute. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the 12% threshold and remanded this issue to the PUCO. A hearing at the PUCO is scheduled for September 2016. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of 2014 SEET requirements.

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. In OPCo’s 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 filing to approve recovery of the deferral under the interim agreement.

To the extent amounts discussed above are refunded to customers, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

PSO Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and PSO)

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 of 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 common equity of 10.5% effective in January 2016. The proposed $44 million increase related to environmental investments was effective in March 2016, after the Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls were placed 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, 2016, PSO had incurred costs of $179 million and $41 million, including AFUDC, for Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and Comanche Plant, respectively.

In addition, the filing also notified the OCC that the incremental replacement capacity and energy costs, including the first year effects of new PPAs, estimated to be $35 million, will be incurred related to the environmental compliance plan due to the closure of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, which would be recovered through the FAC. In April 2016, Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 was retired. Upon retirement, $87 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4. These regulatory assets are pending regulatory approval.

In October 2015, testimony was filed by OCC staff and intervenors with recommendations that included increases to base rates and/or the proposed environmental rider ranging from $10 million to $31 million, based upon returns on common equity ranging from 8.75% to 9.3%, and increases to depreciation expense ranging from $23 million to $46 million. Additionally, recommendations by certain intervenors included (a) no recovery of PSO’s investment in Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls, (b) no recovery of the plant balances at the time the units are retired in 2016 and 2026, (c) denial of returns on the book values after the retirement dates, or to be set at only the cost of debt, and (d) the disallowance of the capacity costs associated with the PPAs. Additionally, some intervenors recommended no change in depreciation lives for Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4. These units are currently being depreciated through 2040. Hearings at the OCC were held in December 2015. In January 2016, PSO implemented an interim annual base rate increase of $75 million. These interim rates are subject to refund pending a final order from the OCC related to the initial $137 million request.

In June 2016, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a report related to PSO’s base rate case filing. The ALJ recommended a 9.25% return on common equity. The ALJ found that PSO’s environmental compliance plan is prudent, but had conflicting recommendations regarding cost recovery in this case and recommended an investment cap of $210 million on environmental controls installed at Northeastern Plant, Unit 3. Additionally, the ALJ recommendations included (a) a $17 million increase in depreciation expense, (b) continued depreciation of Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4 through 2040 (no accelerated depreciation), (c) return of, but no return on, the remaining net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, (d) disallowance of the requested environmental consumables through the FAC indicating that these amounts are not considered fuel and should be recovered through base rates in the next base rate case, (e) elimination of the rider to recover advanced metering starting in December 2016, without inclusion in base rates and (f) elimination of the system reliability rider through consolidation in base rates, without addressing a transition for recovery of rider costs, including deferred costs.

In June 2016, PSO, the OCC staff, the Attorney General and intervenors filed exceptions to the ALJ report. PSO’s response included numerous exceptions related to the ALJ recommendations including the lack of a return on the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4. Additionally, PSO requested the OCC remand the report for further clarification. The OCC staff filed exceptions that supported the full recovery of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 and recommended a $32 million increase in annual revenues. In July 2016, the OCC ordered the ALJ to submit a supplemental report clarifying the recommendations.

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

SWEPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and SWEPCo)

2012 Texas Base Rate Case

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

Upon rehearing in 2014, the PUCT reversed its initial ruling and determined that AFUDC was excluded from the Turk Plant’s Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap. As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2013, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of previously recorded regulatory disallowances. The resulting annual base rate increase was approximately $52 million. In May 2014, intervenors filed appeals of that order with the Texas District Court. In June 2014, SWEPCo intervened in those appeals.

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, 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 prudence review of the Turk Plant. The settlement also provided that the LPSC would review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo would 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. A hearing at the LPSC related to the Turk Plant prudence review is scheduled for November 2016. 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 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 used to serve Louisiana customers in 2015 due to the expiration of a purchased 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, subject to staff review of the cost of service and prudence review of the Turk Plant. In July 2016, the LPSC approved a settlement agreement related to the staff review of the cost of service. A portion of the rates remain subject to refund based on the prudence review of the Turk Plant, see “2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing” above. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of this settlement agreement. 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.

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 was 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 - Environmental Impact

Management currently estimates that the investment necessary to meet proposed environmental regulations through 2025 for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 could cost approximately $850 million, excluding AFUDC. As part of this investment, SWEPCo has completed construction of the environmental control projects to meet Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 at a cost of approximately $370 million, excluding AFUDC.  Management continues to evaluate the impact of environmental rules and related project cost estimates. As of June 30, 2016, SWEPCo had incurred costs of $389 million, including AFUDC, and had remaining contractual construction obligations of $20 million related to these projects.  In March 2016, SWEPCo filed a request with the APSC to recover $69 million in environmental costs related to the Arkansas retail jurisdictional share of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3. SWEPCo began recovering the Arkansas jurisdictional share of these costs in March 2016, subject to review in the next filed base rate proceeding. SWEPCo will seek recovery of the remaining project costs from customers at the state commissions and the FERC.

As of June 30, 2016, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $631 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.  In April 2016, Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was retired. Upon retirement, $76 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2 and the related asset retirement obligation costs. Management will seek recovery of the remaining regulatory assets in future rate proceedings.

If any of these costs are not recoverable, including retirement-related costs for Welsh Plant, Unit 2, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

TCC Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

TCC Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF)

In April 2016, TCC filed a request with the PUCT for approval of a DCRF rider to allow recovery of eligible net distribution investments.  The request included a revenue requirement of $54 million to be effective September 2016.  Amounts approved would be subject to refund based upon a prudence review of the investments in TCC’s next base rate case. In June 2016, TCC and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the PUCT. The settlement agreement included a proposed annual revenue requirement of $45 million, effective September 2016. In July 2016, the PUCT approved the settlement agreement.

TNC Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

TNC Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF)

In April 2016, TNC filed a request with the PUCT for approval of a DCRF rider to allow recovery of eligible net distribution investments. The request included a revenue requirement of $16 million to be effective September 2016. Amounts approved would be subject to refund based upon a prudence review of the investments in TNC’s next base rate case. In June 2016, TNC and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the PUCT. The settlement agreement included a proposed annual revenue requirement of $11 million, effective September 2016. In July 2016, the PUCT approved the settlement agreement.

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

SPP Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) Upgrade Costs

Under the SPP OATT, costs of sponsor-funded transmission upgrades may be recovered, in part, from SPP customers whose transmission service is dependent upon capacity enabled by the upgrades. SPP has not charged its customers any amounts attributable to these upgrades. SPP indicated that the impact to customers will be quantified and charges will be implemented in the second half of 2016, including amounts for prior periods. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that are reasonably possible of occurring.

Indiana Michigan Power Co [Member]

Rate Matters

RATE MATTERS

The disclosures in this note apply to all Registrants unless indicated otherwise.

As discussed in the 2015 Annual Report, the Registrants are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. The Rate Matters note within the 2015 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 2016 and updates the 2015 Annual Report.

Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval

	AEP
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	161.9	$	—
Storm Related Costs	24.5		24.2
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	20.8		20.9
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.1		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	56.7		59.8
Storm Related Costs	24.3		18.2
Peak Demand Reduction/Energy Efficiency	0.6		13.1
Cook Plant Turbine	11.2		9.7
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	29.9		22.0
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	331.0	$	167.9

	APCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	$	9.2	$	9.3
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	29.6		32.7
Peak Demand Reduction/Energy Efficiency - Virginia	—		12.7
Amos Plant Transfer Costs - West Virginia	—		2.0
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.6		0.6
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	39.4	$	57.3

	I&M
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	$	11.6	$	11.6
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs - Indiana	27.1		27.1
Cook Plant Turbine	11.2		9.7
Deferred Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project Costs - Michigan	6.2		4.2
Rockport Dry Sorbent Injection System - Indiana	4.5		2.8
Stranded Costs on Retired Plant	3.9		3.9
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.4		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	64.9	$	59.3

	OPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
gridSMART® Costs	$	3.0	$	1.3
OVEC Purchased Power	2.5		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	5.5	$	1.3

	PSO
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	86.5	$	—
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	0.5		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm Related Costs	18.0		12.3
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.4		1.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	106.4	$	13.4

	SWEPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	75.4	$	—
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	0.5		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Shipe Road Transmission Project - FERC	3.1		3.1
Asset Retirement Obligation - Arkansas, Louisiana	2.2		1.7
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.6		1.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	82.8	$	5.9

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

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

2016 West Virginia Expanded Net Energy Cost Filing

In March 2016, APCo and WPCo filed their combined annual ENEC filing with the WVPSC requesting an increase in ENEC rates of $108 million ($86 million related to APCo) to be effective July 2016. The increase primarily relates to recovery of the December 2015 under-recovered ENEC deferral balance and the recovery of costs associated with the continuation and expansion of certain transmission and generation construction projects.

In June 2016, APCo, WPCo and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the WVPSC. The proposed settlement included $38 million ($30 million related to APCo) of additional ENEC revenues and $17 million ($14 million related to APCo) in construction surcharges annually for two years, effective July 2016. Additionally, APCo and WPCo agreed that a general rate case will not be filed before April 2018. In June 2016, the WVPSC approved the settlement agreement.

West Virginia Deferred Base Rate Increase

In May 2015, the WVPSC issued an order on APCo and WPCo’s combined base rate case. The order included a delayed billing of $25 million ($22 million related to APCo) of the annual base rate increase to residential customers until July 2016. The order provided for carrying charges based upon a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) rate for the $25 million annual delayed billing through June 2016. In February 2016, APCo and WPCo filed a petition with the WVPSC to implement recovery of the unrecognized delayed billing totaling $29 million ($26 million related to APCo), which included carrying charges through June 2016. Recovery of the delayed billing was requested over two years, beginning July 2016, with the unpaid principal subject to carrying charges.

In June 2016, the WVPSC issued an order that approved recovery of the total deferred billing, including carrying charges through June 2018, totaling $29 million ($27 million related to APCo). Recovery was approved over two years, effective July 2016. Additionally, at the end of the two-year amortization, any over/under-recovery of the delay billing will be included in the annual ENEC filing. The WVPSC also approved implementation of the prospective $25 million base rate increase effective July 2016.

2015 Virginia Regulatory Asset Proceeding

In 2015, the Virginia SCC initiated a proceeding to address the proper treatment of APCo’s authorized regulatory assets. Briefs related to this proceeding were filed by various parties. The Virginia SCC has no statutory deadline to issue its decision in this proceeding. As of June 30, 2016, APCo’s authorized regulatory assets under review in this proceeding were $7 million. 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.

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 amendments provide 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 asset impairments related to new carbon emission guidelines issued by the Federal EPA.

In February 2016, certain APCo industrial customers filed a petition with the Virginia SCC requesting the issuance of a declaratory order that finds the amendments to Virginia law suspending biennial reviews unconstitutional and, accordingly, directs APCo to make biennial review filings beginning in 2016. In February 2016, APCo filed a motion to stay the Virginia SCC’s consideration of the petition due to a pending appeal at the Supreme Court of Virginia by industrial customers of a non-related utility regarding the constitutionality of the amendments. In May 2016, these industrial customers withdrew their appeal at the Supreme Court of Virginia. In July 2016, the Virginia SCC issued an order that denied the petition filed by the APCo industrial customers. Also in July 2016, these APCo industrial customers filed with the Virginia SCC a Notice of Appeal of the order to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

ETT Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

ETT Interim Transmission Rates

Parent has a 50% equity ownership interest in ETT. Predominantly all of ETT’s revenues are based on interim rate changes that can be filed twice annually and are subject to review and possible true-up in the next filed base rate proceeding. As of June 30, 2016, AEP’s share of ETT’s cumulative revenues, subject to review, is estimated to be $505 million based upon interim rate increases received from 2009 through 2015. In November 2015, the PUCT ordered ETT to file a base rate case by February 2017. A base rate review could produce a refund if ETT incurs a disallowance of the transmission investment on which an interim increase was based. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring. A refund of interim transmission rates could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

KGPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

Kingsport Base Rate Case

In January 2016, KGPCo filed a request with the TRA to increase base rates by $12 million annually based upon a proposed return on common equity of 10.66%. In June 2016, intervenor testimony was filed at the TRA. Intervenor testimony recommended a $7 million annual increase in base rates with an 8.8% return on common equity. A hearing at the TRA is scheduled for August 2016. If KGPCo does not recover its costs, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

OPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and OPCo)

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 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate proceeding which implemented a PIRR to recover OPCo’s 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 WACC rate. In June 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision that reversed the PUCO order on the carrying cost rate issue. In October 2015 this matter was remanded back to the PUCO for reinstatement of the WACC rate.

In May 2016, OPCo filed a proposed increase to the PIRR rates with the PUCO, in accordance with the June 2015 Supreme Court of Ohio ruling. The proposed increase to PIRR rates included $146 million in additional carrying charges and $40 million in additional under-recovered fuel costs resulting from a decrease in customer demand. OPCo requested the proposed increase be effective July 2016 through December 2018. In June 2016, the PUCO issued an order that approved OPCo’s proposed increase to the PIRR rates.

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. In 2013, this ruling was generally upheld in PUCO rehearing orders.

In July 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate capacity proceeding requiring OPCo to 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 included reserve margins, was approximately $34/MW day through May 2014 and $150/MW day from June 2014 through May 2015. In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued two opinions related to the deferral of OPCo’s capacity charges. In one of the opinions, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the PUCO must reconsider an energy credit that was used to determine OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold of $188.88/MW day during the August 2012 through May 2015 period. The PUCO reduced OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold to $188.88/MW day largely due to an offset for an energy credit of $147.41/MW day. The Supreme Court of Ohio directed the PUCO to substantively address OPCo’s arguments that the $147.41/MW day credit was overstated by approximately$100/MW day due to various inaccuracies affecting input data and assumptions.

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 April 2015, the PUCO issued an order that modified and approved OPCo’s July 2014 application to collect the unrecovered portion of the deferred capacity costs. 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. As of June 30, 2016, OPCo’s net deferred capacity costs balance of $285 million, including debt carrying costs, was recorded in Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet. In April 2016, the second Supreme Court of Ohio opinion rejected a portion of OPCo’s RSR revenues collected during the period September 2012 through May 2015 and directed the PUCO to reduce OPCo’s deferred capacity costs by these previously collected RSR revenues. The Supreme Court of Ohio was not able to determine the amount of the reduction to OPCo’s deferred capacity costs and remanded the issue to the PUCO to determine the appropriate reduction. As directed by the PUCO, in May 2016, OPCo submitted revised RSR tariffs that reflect the RSR being collected subject to refund.

In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio also ruled favorably on OPCo’s cross-appeal regarding a previously PUCO-imposed SEET threshold under the ESP and remanded this issue to the PUCO. See “Significantly Excessive Earnings Test Filings” section below.

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 November 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo’s competitive bid process with modifications. 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 with the PUCO for the period August 2012 through May 2015. 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.

In June 2016, OPCo filed a request with the PUCO that requested a consolidated procedural schedule to resolve interrelated proceedings including (a) OPCo’s deferral of capacity costs for the period August 2012 through May 2015, (b) the implementation of OPCo’s RSR and (c) the concerns related to the recovery of fixed fuel costs through both the FAC and the approved capacity charges. As part of the filing, OPCo requested that its net deferred capacity costs balance as of May 31, 2015 increase by $157 million, including carrying charges through September 2016. This net increase consists of a $327 million decrease due to the non-deferral portion of the RSR collections and an increase of $484 million for the correction of the energy credit. Recovery of the $157 million was requested to be effective October 2016 through December 2018. Additionally, OPCo filed testimony supporting the position that double recovery of fixed fuel costs could not have occurred because OPCo was unable to fully recover its capacity costs, which included fixed fuel costs, even with a corrected energy credit.

Due to the interrelated nature of these two Supreme Court of Ohio opinions that directly relate to OPCo’s deferred capacity costs, management believes that the PUCO will rule upon these issues together. Further, management believes that the net impact of these issues will not result in a material future reduction of OPCo’s net income.

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 Including PPA Application and Proposed ESP Extension through 2024

In 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 also included a 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 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, the PUCO issued an order on rehearing that increased the DIR rate caps and deferred ruling on all requests for rehearing related to the establishment of the PPA rider. In July 2015, the PUCO granted OPCo’s and various intervenors’ requests for rehearing related to the May 2015 order.

In May 2015, OPCo filed an amended PPA application that (a) included OPCo’s OVEC contractual entitlement (OVEC PPA), (b) addressed the PPA requirements set forth in the PUCO’s February 2015 order and (c) included the 2,671 MW to be available for capacity, energy and ancillary services, produced by AGR over the lives of the respective generating units (Affiliate PPA).

In March 2016, a contested stipulation agreement related to the PPA rider application was modified and approved by the PUCO. The approved PPA rider is effective April 2016 through May 2024, with quarterly PPA rider reconciliations to actual PPA costs compared to PJM market revenues, subject to audit and review by the PUCO. The stipulation agreement, as approved, included:

(a) an Affiliate PPA between OPCo and AGR to be included in the PPA rider,

(b) OPCo’s OVEC PPA to be included in the PPA rider,

(c) potential additional contingent customer credits of up to $100 million to be included in the PPA rider over the final four years of the PPA rider,

(d) a temporary customer-specific rate impact cap of 5% through May 2018,

(e) an agreement to retire, refuel or repower to 100% natural gas, Conesville Plant, Units 5 and 6 and Cardinal Plant, Unit 1 by 2029 and 2030, respectively,

(f) a directive that OPCo will not seek recovery from customers for any costs associated with the retirement, refueling, co-firing or repowering of PPA units,

(g) the limitation that OPCo will not flow through any capacity performance penalties or bonuses through the PPA rider,

(h) the right for the PUCO to exclude costs associated with a forced outage lasting longer than 90 days and

(i) the right for the PUCO to re-evaluate or modify the PPA rider if there is a change to PJM’s tariffs or rules that prohibits a PPA unit from being bid into PJM auctions.

Additionally, subject to cost recovery and PUCO approval, OPCo agreed to develop and implement, by 2021, a solar energy project(s) of at least 400 MW and a wind energy project(s) of at least 500 MW, with 100% of all output to be received by OPCo. AEP affiliates could own up to 50% of these solar and wind projects. OPCo agreed to file a carbon reduction plan with the PUCO by December 2016 that will focus on fuel diversification and carbon emission reductions.

In March 2016, a group of merchant generation owners filed a complaint at the FERC against PJM seeking revisions to the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) in PJM’s tariff. Although the complaint requested the FERC act in advance of the May 2016 Base Residual Auction for the 2019/2020 delivery year, the complaint is still pending without a decision from the FERC. If approved as proposed, the revised MOPR could affect future bidding behavior for units with cost recovery mechanisms.

In April 2016, the FERC issued an order granting a January 2016 complaint filed against AGR and OPCo.  The FERC order rescinded the waivers of the FERC’s affiliate rules as to the Affiliate PPA between AGR and OPCo.  As a result, AGR and OPCo cannot implement the Affiliate PPA without the FERC review, in accordance with FERC’s rules governing affiliate transactions.  As a result of the April 2016 FERC order, management does not intend to pursue the Affiliate PPA.

In May 2016, OPCo filed an application for rehearing with the PUCO related to certain aspects of the March 2016 PUCO order. The application included a proposed OVEC-only PPA Rider that included an option for the rider to be bypassable. The proposed OVEC-only PPA Rider included (a) the elimination of the PUCO-imposed customer-specific rate impact cap of 5% through May 2018, (b) modifications to proportionately decrease the amount of the potential customer credits and (c) the inclusion of PJM capacity performance penalties within the PPA rider. Also in May 2016, intervenors filed applications for rehearing with the PUCO opposing the modified and approved stipulation agreement.

Management seeks to maintain, subject to requested modifications, the commitments approved as part of the original PPA order despite the fact that the proposed Affiliate PPA is no longer included following the FERC’s order rescinding the waiver of affiliate rules. OPCo has the option to exercise its right to withdraw from the PPA stipulation at any time.

Consistent with the terms of the modified and approved stipulation agreement, in May 2016, OPCo filed an amended ESP that proposed to extend the ESP through May 2024. The amended ESP included (a) an extension of the PPA rider, which includes only OPCo’s entitlements to its ownership percentage of OVEC, (b) a proposed 10.41% return on common equity, (c) the continuation of riders previously approved in the June 2015 - May 2018 ESP, (d) proposed increases in rate caps related to OPCo’s DIR and (e) the addition of various new riders, including a Generation Resource Rider.

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

Background

Ohio law provides for the return of significantly excessive earnings to ratepayers upon PUCO review. Significantly excessive earnings are measured by whether the earned return on common equity of the electric distribution utility is significantly in excess of the return on common equity that was earned during the same period by publicly traded companies, including utilities, that face comparable business and financial risk.

2009 SEET Filing

In 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 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^® (gridSMART^® Phase II) program was filed with the PUCO which included a proposed project to satisfy the PUCO 2009 SEET directive. In April 2016, a stipulation agreement related to the gridSMART^® Phase II program was filed with the PUCO. As part of the stipulation agreement, OPCo will invest at least $20 million over a six-year period for the installation of Volt VAR Optimization (VVO) technology on selected circuits throughout OPCo’s service territory. All parties to the stipulation agree that OPCo’s proposed VVO investment resolves OPCo’s outstanding obligation for renewable or similar investment associated with the PUCO’s 2009 SEET directive. A hearing at the PUCO is scheduled for August 2016.

2014 SEET Filing

The PUCO established an annual SEET earnings threshold of 12% during the June 2012 - May 2015 ESP period. In May 2013, OPCo filed a cross appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio, asserting that the SEET threshold would not be based on the earnings of comparable publicly traded companies as originally required by the SEET statute. In June 2015, OPCo submitted its SEET filings for 2014 with the PUCO.

In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with OPCo’s cross-appeal assertion that a 12% SEET threshold was not based on the applicable Ohio SEET statute. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the 12% threshold and remanded this issue to the PUCO. A hearing at the PUCO is scheduled for September 2016. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of 2014 SEET requirements.

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. In OPCo’s 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 filing to approve recovery of the deferral under the interim agreement.

To the extent amounts discussed above are refunded to customers, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

PSO Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and PSO)

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 of 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 common equity of 10.5% effective in January 2016. The proposed $44 million increase related to environmental investments was effective in March 2016, after the Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls were placed 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, 2016, PSO had incurred costs of $179 million and $41 million, including AFUDC, for Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and Comanche Plant, respectively.

In addition, the filing also notified the OCC that the incremental replacement capacity and energy costs, including the first year effects of new PPAs, estimated to be $35 million, will be incurred related to the environmental compliance plan due to the closure of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, which would be recovered through the FAC. In April 2016, Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 was retired. Upon retirement, $87 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4. These regulatory assets are pending regulatory approval.

In October 2015, testimony was filed by OCC staff and intervenors with recommendations that included increases to base rates and/or the proposed environmental rider ranging from $10 million to $31 million, based upon returns on common equity ranging from 8.75% to 9.3%, and increases to depreciation expense ranging from $23 million to $46 million. Additionally, recommendations by certain intervenors included (a) no recovery of PSO’s investment in Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls, (b) no recovery of the plant balances at the time the units are retired in 2016 and 2026, (c) denial of returns on the book values after the retirement dates, or to be set at only the cost of debt, and (d) the disallowance of the capacity costs associated with the PPAs. Additionally, some intervenors recommended no change in depreciation lives for Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4. These units are currently being depreciated through 2040. Hearings at the OCC were held in December 2015. In January 2016, PSO implemented an interim annual base rate increase of $75 million. These interim rates are subject to refund pending a final order from the OCC related to the initial $137 million request.

In June 2016, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a report related to PSO’s base rate case filing. The ALJ recommended a 9.25% return on common equity. The ALJ found that PSO’s environmental compliance plan is prudent, but had conflicting recommendations regarding cost recovery in this case and recommended an investment cap of $210 million on environmental controls installed at Northeastern Plant, Unit 3. Additionally, the ALJ recommendations included (a) a $17 million increase in depreciation expense, (b) continued depreciation of Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4 through 2040 (no accelerated depreciation), (c) return of, but no return on, the remaining net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, (d) disallowance of the requested environmental consumables through the FAC indicating that these amounts are not considered fuel and should be recovered through base rates in the next base rate case, (e) elimination of the rider to recover advanced metering starting in December 2016, without inclusion in base rates and (f) elimination of the system reliability rider through consolidation in base rates, without addressing a transition for recovery of rider costs, including deferred costs.

In June 2016, PSO, the OCC staff, the Attorney General and intervenors filed exceptions to the ALJ report. PSO’s response included numerous exceptions related to the ALJ recommendations including the lack of a return on the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4. Additionally, PSO requested the OCC remand the report for further clarification. The OCC staff filed exceptions that supported the full recovery of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 and recommended a $32 million increase in annual revenues. In July 2016, the OCC ordered the ALJ to submit a supplemental report clarifying the recommendations.

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

SWEPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and SWEPCo)

2012 Texas Base Rate Case

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

Upon rehearing in 2014, the PUCT reversed its initial ruling and determined that AFUDC was excluded from the Turk Plant’s Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap. As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2013, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of previously recorded regulatory disallowances. The resulting annual base rate increase was approximately $52 million. In May 2014, intervenors filed appeals of that order with the Texas District Court. In June 2014, SWEPCo intervened in those appeals.

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, 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 prudence review of the Turk Plant. The settlement also provided that the LPSC would review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo would 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. A hearing at the LPSC related to the Turk Plant prudence review is scheduled for November 2016. 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 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 used to serve Louisiana customers in 2015 due to the expiration of a purchased 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, subject to staff review of the cost of service and prudence review of the Turk Plant. In July 2016, the LPSC approved a settlement agreement related to the staff review of the cost of service. A portion of the rates remain subject to refund based on the prudence review of the Turk Plant, see “2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing” above. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of this settlement agreement. 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.

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 was 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 - Environmental Impact

Management currently estimates that the investment necessary to meet proposed environmental regulations through 2025 for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 could cost approximately $850 million, excluding AFUDC. As part of this investment, SWEPCo has completed construction of the environmental control projects to meet Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 at a cost of approximately $370 million, excluding AFUDC.  Management continues to evaluate the impact of environmental rules and related project cost estimates. As of June 30, 2016, SWEPCo had incurred costs of $389 million, including AFUDC, and had remaining contractual construction obligations of $20 million related to these projects.  In March 2016, SWEPCo filed a request with the APSC to recover $69 million in environmental costs related to the Arkansas retail jurisdictional share of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3. SWEPCo began recovering the Arkansas jurisdictional share of these costs in March 2016, subject to review in the next filed base rate proceeding. SWEPCo will seek recovery of the remaining project costs from customers at the state commissions and the FERC.

As of June 30, 2016, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $631 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.  In April 2016, Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was retired. Upon retirement, $76 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2 and the related asset retirement obligation costs. Management will seek recovery of the remaining regulatory assets in future rate proceedings.

If any of these costs are not recoverable, including retirement-related costs for Welsh Plant, Unit 2, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

TCC Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

TCC Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF)

In April 2016, TCC filed a request with the PUCT for approval of a DCRF rider to allow recovery of eligible net distribution investments.  The request included a revenue requirement of $54 million to be effective September 2016.  Amounts approved would be subject to refund based upon a prudence review of the investments in TCC’s next base rate case. In June 2016, TCC and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the PUCT. The settlement agreement included a proposed annual revenue requirement of $45 million, effective September 2016. In July 2016, the PUCT approved the settlement agreement.

TNC Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

TNC Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF)

In April 2016, TNC filed a request with the PUCT for approval of a DCRF rider to allow recovery of eligible net distribution investments. The request included a revenue requirement of $16 million to be effective September 2016. Amounts approved would be subject to refund based upon a prudence review of the investments in TNC’s next base rate case. In June 2016, TNC and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the PUCT. The settlement agreement included a proposed annual revenue requirement of $11 million, effective September 2016. In July 2016, the PUCT approved the settlement agreement.

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

SPP Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) Upgrade Costs

Under the SPP OATT, costs of sponsor-funded transmission upgrades may be recovered, in part, from SPP customers whose transmission service is dependent upon capacity enabled by the upgrades. SPP has not charged its customers any amounts attributable to these upgrades. SPP indicated that the impact to customers will be quantified and charges will be implemented in the second half of 2016, including amounts for prior periods. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that are reasonably possible of occurring.

Ohio Power Co [Member]

Rate Matters

RATE MATTERS

The disclosures in this note apply to all Registrants unless indicated otherwise.

As discussed in the 2015 Annual Report, the Registrants are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. The Rate Matters note within the 2015 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 2016 and updates the 2015 Annual Report.

Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval

	AEP
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	161.9	$	—
Storm Related Costs	24.5		24.2
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	20.8		20.9
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.1		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	56.7		59.8
Storm Related Costs	24.3		18.2
Peak Demand Reduction/Energy Efficiency	0.6		13.1
Cook Plant Turbine	11.2		9.7
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	29.9		22.0
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	331.0	$	167.9

	APCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	$	9.2	$	9.3
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	29.6		32.7
Peak Demand Reduction/Energy Efficiency - Virginia	—		12.7
Amos Plant Transfer Costs - West Virginia	—		2.0
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.6		0.6
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	39.4	$	57.3

	I&M
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	$	11.6	$	11.6
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs - Indiana	27.1		27.1
Cook Plant Turbine	11.2		9.7
Deferred Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project Costs - Michigan	6.2		4.2
Rockport Dry Sorbent Injection System - Indiana	4.5		2.8
Stranded Costs on Retired Plant	3.9		3.9
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.4		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	64.9	$	59.3

	OPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
gridSMART® Costs	$	3.0	$	1.3
OVEC Purchased Power	2.5		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	5.5	$	1.3

	PSO
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	86.5	$	—
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	0.5		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm Related Costs	18.0		12.3
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.4		1.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	106.4	$	13.4

	SWEPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	75.4	$	—
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	0.5		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Shipe Road Transmission Project - FERC	3.1		3.1
Asset Retirement Obligation - Arkansas, Louisiana	2.2		1.7
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.6		1.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	82.8	$	5.9

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

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

2016 West Virginia Expanded Net Energy Cost Filing

In March 2016, APCo and WPCo filed their combined annual ENEC filing with the WVPSC requesting an increase in ENEC rates of $108 million ($86 million related to APCo) to be effective July 2016. The increase primarily relates to recovery of the December 2015 under-recovered ENEC deferral balance and the recovery of costs associated with the continuation and expansion of certain transmission and generation construction projects.

In June 2016, APCo, WPCo and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the WVPSC. The proposed settlement included $38 million ($30 million related to APCo) of additional ENEC revenues and $17 million ($14 million related to APCo) in construction surcharges annually for two years, effective July 2016. Additionally, APCo and WPCo agreed that a general rate case will not be filed before April 2018. In June 2016, the WVPSC approved the settlement agreement.

West Virginia Deferred Base Rate Increase

In May 2015, the WVPSC issued an order on APCo and WPCo’s combined base rate case. The order included a delayed billing of $25 million ($22 million related to APCo) of the annual base rate increase to residential customers until July 2016. The order provided for carrying charges based upon a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) rate for the $25 million annual delayed billing through June 2016. In February 2016, APCo and WPCo filed a petition with the WVPSC to implement recovery of the unrecognized delayed billing totaling $29 million ($26 million related to APCo), which included carrying charges through June 2016. Recovery of the delayed billing was requested over two years, beginning July 2016, with the unpaid principal subject to carrying charges.

In June 2016, the WVPSC issued an order that approved recovery of the total deferred billing, including carrying charges through June 2018, totaling $29 million ($27 million related to APCo). Recovery was approved over two years, effective July 2016. Additionally, at the end of the two-year amortization, any over/under-recovery of the delay billing will be included in the annual ENEC filing. The WVPSC also approved implementation of the prospective $25 million base rate increase effective July 2016.

2015 Virginia Regulatory Asset Proceeding

In 2015, the Virginia SCC initiated a proceeding to address the proper treatment of APCo’s authorized regulatory assets. Briefs related to this proceeding were filed by various parties. The Virginia SCC has no statutory deadline to issue its decision in this proceeding. As of June 30, 2016, APCo’s authorized regulatory assets under review in this proceeding were $7 million. 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.

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 amendments provide 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 asset impairments related to new carbon emission guidelines issued by the Federal EPA.

In February 2016, certain APCo industrial customers filed a petition with the Virginia SCC requesting the issuance of a declaratory order that finds the amendments to Virginia law suspending biennial reviews unconstitutional and, accordingly, directs APCo to make biennial review filings beginning in 2016. In February 2016, APCo filed a motion to stay the Virginia SCC’s consideration of the petition due to a pending appeal at the Supreme Court of Virginia by industrial customers of a non-related utility regarding the constitutionality of the amendments. In May 2016, these industrial customers withdrew their appeal at the Supreme Court of Virginia. In July 2016, the Virginia SCC issued an order that denied the petition filed by the APCo industrial customers. Also in July 2016, these APCo industrial customers filed with the Virginia SCC a Notice of Appeal of the order to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

ETT Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

ETT Interim Transmission Rates

Parent has a 50% equity ownership interest in ETT. Predominantly all of ETT’s revenues are based on interim rate changes that can be filed twice annually and are subject to review and possible true-up in the next filed base rate proceeding. As of June 30, 2016, AEP’s share of ETT’s cumulative revenues, subject to review, is estimated to be $505 million based upon interim rate increases received from 2009 through 2015. In November 2015, the PUCT ordered ETT to file a base rate case by February 2017. A base rate review could produce a refund if ETT incurs a disallowance of the transmission investment on which an interim increase was based. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring. A refund of interim transmission rates could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

KGPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

Kingsport Base Rate Case

In January 2016, KGPCo filed a request with the TRA to increase base rates by $12 million annually based upon a proposed return on common equity of 10.66%. In June 2016, intervenor testimony was filed at the TRA. Intervenor testimony recommended a $7 million annual increase in base rates with an 8.8% return on common equity. A hearing at the TRA is scheduled for August 2016. If KGPCo does not recover its costs, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

OPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and OPCo)

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 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate proceeding which implemented a PIRR to recover OPCo’s 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 WACC rate. In June 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision that reversed the PUCO order on the carrying cost rate issue. In October 2015 this matter was remanded back to the PUCO for reinstatement of the WACC rate.

In May 2016, OPCo filed a proposed increase to the PIRR rates with the PUCO, in accordance with the June 2015 Supreme Court of Ohio ruling. The proposed increase to PIRR rates included $146 million in additional carrying charges and $40 million in additional under-recovered fuel costs resulting from a decrease in customer demand. OPCo requested the proposed increase be effective July 2016 through December 2018. In June 2016, the PUCO issued an order that approved OPCo’s proposed increase to the PIRR rates.

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. In 2013, this ruling was generally upheld in PUCO rehearing orders.

In July 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate capacity proceeding requiring OPCo to 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 included reserve margins, was approximately $34/MW day through May 2014 and $150/MW day from June 2014 through May 2015. In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued two opinions related to the deferral of OPCo’s capacity charges. In one of the opinions, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the PUCO must reconsider an energy credit that was used to determine OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold of $188.88/MW day during the August 2012 through May 2015 period. The PUCO reduced OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold to $188.88/MW day largely due to an offset for an energy credit of $147.41/MW day. The Supreme Court of Ohio directed the PUCO to substantively address OPCo’s arguments that the $147.41/MW day credit was overstated by approximately$100/MW day due to various inaccuracies affecting input data and assumptions.

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 April 2015, the PUCO issued an order that modified and approved OPCo’s July 2014 application to collect the unrecovered portion of the deferred capacity costs. 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. As of June 30, 2016, OPCo’s net deferred capacity costs balance of $285 million, including debt carrying costs, was recorded in Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet. In April 2016, the second Supreme Court of Ohio opinion rejected a portion of OPCo’s RSR revenues collected during the period September 2012 through May 2015 and directed the PUCO to reduce OPCo’s deferred capacity costs by these previously collected RSR revenues. The Supreme Court of Ohio was not able to determine the amount of the reduction to OPCo’s deferred capacity costs and remanded the issue to the PUCO to determine the appropriate reduction. As directed by the PUCO, in May 2016, OPCo submitted revised RSR tariffs that reflect the RSR being collected subject to refund.

In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio also ruled favorably on OPCo’s cross-appeal regarding a previously PUCO-imposed SEET threshold under the ESP and remanded this issue to the PUCO. See “Significantly Excessive Earnings Test Filings” section below.

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 November 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo’s competitive bid process with modifications. 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 with the PUCO for the period August 2012 through May 2015. 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.

In June 2016, OPCo filed a request with the PUCO that requested a consolidated procedural schedule to resolve interrelated proceedings including (a) OPCo’s deferral of capacity costs for the period August 2012 through May 2015, (b) the implementation of OPCo’s RSR and (c) the concerns related to the recovery of fixed fuel costs through both the FAC and the approved capacity charges. As part of the filing, OPCo requested that its net deferred capacity costs balance as of May 31, 2015 increase by $157 million, including carrying charges through September 2016. This net increase consists of a $327 million decrease due to the non-deferral portion of the RSR collections and an increase of $484 million for the correction of the energy credit. Recovery of the $157 million was requested to be effective October 2016 through December 2018. Additionally, OPCo filed testimony supporting the position that double recovery of fixed fuel costs could not have occurred because OPCo was unable to fully recover its capacity costs, which included fixed fuel costs, even with a corrected energy credit.

Due to the interrelated nature of these two Supreme Court of Ohio opinions that directly relate to OPCo’s deferred capacity costs, management believes that the PUCO will rule upon these issues together. Further, management believes that the net impact of these issues will not result in a material future reduction of OPCo’s net income.

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 Including PPA Application and Proposed ESP Extension through 2024

In 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 also included a 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 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, the PUCO issued an order on rehearing that increased the DIR rate caps and deferred ruling on all requests for rehearing related to the establishment of the PPA rider. In July 2015, the PUCO granted OPCo’s and various intervenors’ requests for rehearing related to the May 2015 order.

In May 2015, OPCo filed an amended PPA application that (a) included OPCo’s OVEC contractual entitlement (OVEC PPA), (b) addressed the PPA requirements set forth in the PUCO’s February 2015 order and (c) included the 2,671 MW to be available for capacity, energy and ancillary services, produced by AGR over the lives of the respective generating units (Affiliate PPA).

In March 2016, a contested stipulation agreement related to the PPA rider application was modified and approved by the PUCO. The approved PPA rider is effective April 2016 through May 2024, with quarterly PPA rider reconciliations to actual PPA costs compared to PJM market revenues, subject to audit and review by the PUCO. The stipulation agreement, as approved, included:

(a) an Affiliate PPA between OPCo and AGR to be included in the PPA rider,

(b) OPCo’s OVEC PPA to be included in the PPA rider,

(c) potential additional contingent customer credits of up to $100 million to be included in the PPA rider over the final four years of the PPA rider,

(d) a temporary customer-specific rate impact cap of 5% through May 2018,

(e) an agreement to retire, refuel or repower to 100% natural gas, Conesville Plant, Units 5 and 6 and Cardinal Plant, Unit 1 by 2029 and 2030, respectively,

(f) a directive that OPCo will not seek recovery from customers for any costs associated with the retirement, refueling, co-firing or repowering of PPA units,

(g) the limitation that OPCo will not flow through any capacity performance penalties or bonuses through the PPA rider,

(h) the right for the PUCO to exclude costs associated with a forced outage lasting longer than 90 days and

(i) the right for the PUCO to re-evaluate or modify the PPA rider if there is a change to PJM’s tariffs or rules that prohibits a PPA unit from being bid into PJM auctions.

Additionally, subject to cost recovery and PUCO approval, OPCo agreed to develop and implement, by 2021, a solar energy project(s) of at least 400 MW and a wind energy project(s) of at least 500 MW, with 100% of all output to be received by OPCo. AEP affiliates could own up to 50% of these solar and wind projects. OPCo agreed to file a carbon reduction plan with the PUCO by December 2016 that will focus on fuel diversification and carbon emission reductions.

In March 2016, a group of merchant generation owners filed a complaint at the FERC against PJM seeking revisions to the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) in PJM’s tariff. Although the complaint requested the FERC act in advance of the May 2016 Base Residual Auction for the 2019/2020 delivery year, the complaint is still pending without a decision from the FERC. If approved as proposed, the revised MOPR could affect future bidding behavior for units with cost recovery mechanisms.

In April 2016, the FERC issued an order granting a January 2016 complaint filed against AGR and OPCo.  The FERC order rescinded the waivers of the FERC’s affiliate rules as to the Affiliate PPA between AGR and OPCo.  As a result, AGR and OPCo cannot implement the Affiliate PPA without the FERC review, in accordance with FERC’s rules governing affiliate transactions.  As a result of the April 2016 FERC order, management does not intend to pursue the Affiliate PPA.

In May 2016, OPCo filed an application for rehearing with the PUCO related to certain aspects of the March 2016 PUCO order. The application included a proposed OVEC-only PPA Rider that included an option for the rider to be bypassable. The proposed OVEC-only PPA Rider included (a) the elimination of the PUCO-imposed customer-specific rate impact cap of 5% through May 2018, (b) modifications to proportionately decrease the amount of the potential customer credits and (c) the inclusion of PJM capacity performance penalties within the PPA rider. Also in May 2016, intervenors filed applications for rehearing with the PUCO opposing the modified and approved stipulation agreement.

Management seeks to maintain, subject to requested modifications, the commitments approved as part of the original PPA order despite the fact that the proposed Affiliate PPA is no longer included following the FERC’s order rescinding the waiver of affiliate rules. OPCo has the option to exercise its right to withdraw from the PPA stipulation at any time.

Consistent with the terms of the modified and approved stipulation agreement, in May 2016, OPCo filed an amended ESP that proposed to extend the ESP through May 2024. The amended ESP included (a) an extension of the PPA rider, which includes only OPCo’s entitlements to its ownership percentage of OVEC, (b) a proposed 10.41% return on common equity, (c) the continuation of riders previously approved in the June 2015 - May 2018 ESP, (d) proposed increases in rate caps related to OPCo’s DIR and (e) the addition of various new riders, including a Generation Resource Rider.

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

Background

Ohio law provides for the return of significantly excessive earnings to ratepayers upon PUCO review. Significantly excessive earnings are measured by whether the earned return on common equity of the electric distribution utility is significantly in excess of the return on common equity that was earned during the same period by publicly traded companies, including utilities, that face comparable business and financial risk.

2009 SEET Filing

In 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 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^® (gridSMART^® Phase II) program was filed with the PUCO which included a proposed project to satisfy the PUCO 2009 SEET directive. In April 2016, a stipulation agreement related to the gridSMART^® Phase II program was filed with the PUCO. As part of the stipulation agreement, OPCo will invest at least $20 million over a six-year period for the installation of Volt VAR Optimization (VVO) technology on selected circuits throughout OPCo’s service territory. All parties to the stipulation agree that OPCo’s proposed VVO investment resolves OPCo’s outstanding obligation for renewable or similar investment associated with the PUCO’s 2009 SEET directive. A hearing at the PUCO is scheduled for August 2016.

2014 SEET Filing

The PUCO established an annual SEET earnings threshold of 12% during the June 2012 - May 2015 ESP period. In May 2013, OPCo filed a cross appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio, asserting that the SEET threshold would not be based on the earnings of comparable publicly traded companies as originally required by the SEET statute. In June 2015, OPCo submitted its SEET filings for 2014 with the PUCO.

In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with OPCo’s cross-appeal assertion that a 12% SEET threshold was not based on the applicable Ohio SEET statute. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the 12% threshold and remanded this issue to the PUCO. A hearing at the PUCO is scheduled for September 2016. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of 2014 SEET requirements.

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. In OPCo’s 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 filing to approve recovery of the deferral under the interim agreement.

To the extent amounts discussed above are refunded to customers, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

PSO Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and PSO)

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 of 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 common equity of 10.5% effective in January 2016. The proposed $44 million increase related to environmental investments was effective in March 2016, after the Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls were placed 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, 2016, PSO had incurred costs of $179 million and $41 million, including AFUDC, for Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and Comanche Plant, respectively.

In addition, the filing also notified the OCC that the incremental replacement capacity and energy costs, including the first year effects of new PPAs, estimated to be $35 million, will be incurred related to the environmental compliance plan due to the closure of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, which would be recovered through the FAC. In April 2016, Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 was retired. Upon retirement, $87 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4. These regulatory assets are pending regulatory approval.

In October 2015, testimony was filed by OCC staff and intervenors with recommendations that included increases to base rates and/or the proposed environmental rider ranging from $10 million to $31 million, based upon returns on common equity ranging from 8.75% to 9.3%, and increases to depreciation expense ranging from $23 million to $46 million. Additionally, recommendations by certain intervenors included (a) no recovery of PSO’s investment in Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls, (b) no recovery of the plant balances at the time the units are retired in 2016 and 2026, (c) denial of returns on the book values after the retirement dates, or to be set at only the cost of debt, and (d) the disallowance of the capacity costs associated with the PPAs. Additionally, some intervenors recommended no change in depreciation lives for Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4. These units are currently being depreciated through 2040. Hearings at the OCC were held in December 2015. In January 2016, PSO implemented an interim annual base rate increase of $75 million. These interim rates are subject to refund pending a final order from the OCC related to the initial $137 million request.

In June 2016, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a report related to PSO’s base rate case filing. The ALJ recommended a 9.25% return on common equity. The ALJ found that PSO’s environmental compliance plan is prudent, but had conflicting recommendations regarding cost recovery in this case and recommended an investment cap of $210 million on environmental controls installed at Northeastern Plant, Unit 3. Additionally, the ALJ recommendations included (a) a $17 million increase in depreciation expense, (b) continued depreciation of Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4 through 2040 (no accelerated depreciation), (c) return of, but no return on, the remaining net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, (d) disallowance of the requested environmental consumables through the FAC indicating that these amounts are not considered fuel and should be recovered through base rates in the next base rate case, (e) elimination of the rider to recover advanced metering starting in December 2016, without inclusion in base rates and (f) elimination of the system reliability rider through consolidation in base rates, without addressing a transition for recovery of rider costs, including deferred costs.

In June 2016, PSO, the OCC staff, the Attorney General and intervenors filed exceptions to the ALJ report. PSO’s response included numerous exceptions related to the ALJ recommendations including the lack of a return on the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4. Additionally, PSO requested the OCC remand the report for further clarification. The OCC staff filed exceptions that supported the full recovery of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 and recommended a $32 million increase in annual revenues. In July 2016, the OCC ordered the ALJ to submit a supplemental report clarifying the recommendations.

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

SWEPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and SWEPCo)

2012 Texas Base Rate Case

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

Upon rehearing in 2014, the PUCT reversed its initial ruling and determined that AFUDC was excluded from the Turk Plant’s Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap. As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2013, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of previously recorded regulatory disallowances. The resulting annual base rate increase was approximately $52 million. In May 2014, intervenors filed appeals of that order with the Texas District Court. In June 2014, SWEPCo intervened in those appeals.

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, 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 prudence review of the Turk Plant. The settlement also provided that the LPSC would review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo would 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. A hearing at the LPSC related to the Turk Plant prudence review is scheduled for November 2016. 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 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 used to serve Louisiana customers in 2015 due to the expiration of a purchased 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, subject to staff review of the cost of service and prudence review of the Turk Plant. In July 2016, the LPSC approved a settlement agreement related to the staff review of the cost of service. A portion of the rates remain subject to refund based on the prudence review of the Turk Plant, see “2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing” above. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of this settlement agreement. 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.

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 was 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 - Environmental Impact

Management currently estimates that the investment necessary to meet proposed environmental regulations through 2025 for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 could cost approximately $850 million, excluding AFUDC. As part of this investment, SWEPCo has completed construction of the environmental control projects to meet Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 at a cost of approximately $370 million, excluding AFUDC.  Management continues to evaluate the impact of environmental rules and related project cost estimates. As of June 30, 2016, SWEPCo had incurred costs of $389 million, including AFUDC, and had remaining contractual construction obligations of $20 million related to these projects.  In March 2016, SWEPCo filed a request with the APSC to recover $69 million in environmental costs related to the Arkansas retail jurisdictional share of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3. SWEPCo began recovering the Arkansas jurisdictional share of these costs in March 2016, subject to review in the next filed base rate proceeding. SWEPCo will seek recovery of the remaining project costs from customers at the state commissions and the FERC.

As of June 30, 2016, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $631 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.  In April 2016, Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was retired. Upon retirement, $76 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2 and the related asset retirement obligation costs. Management will seek recovery of the remaining regulatory assets in future rate proceedings.

If any of these costs are not recoverable, including retirement-related costs for Welsh Plant, Unit 2, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

TCC Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

TCC Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF)

In April 2016, TCC filed a request with the PUCT for approval of a DCRF rider to allow recovery of eligible net distribution investments.  The request included a revenue requirement of $54 million to be effective September 2016.  Amounts approved would be subject to refund based upon a prudence review of the investments in TCC’s next base rate case. In June 2016, TCC and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the PUCT. The settlement agreement included a proposed annual revenue requirement of $45 million, effective September 2016. In July 2016, the PUCT approved the settlement agreement.

TNC Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

TNC Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF)

In April 2016, TNC filed a request with the PUCT for approval of a DCRF rider to allow recovery of eligible net distribution investments. The request included a revenue requirement of $16 million to be effective September 2016. Amounts approved would be subject to refund based upon a prudence review of the investments in TNC’s next base rate case. In June 2016, TNC and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the PUCT. The settlement agreement included a proposed annual revenue requirement of $11 million, effective September 2016. In July 2016, the PUCT approved the settlement agreement.

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

SPP Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) Upgrade Costs

Under the SPP OATT, costs of sponsor-funded transmission upgrades may be recovered, in part, from SPP customers whose transmission service is dependent upon capacity enabled by the upgrades. SPP has not charged its customers any amounts attributable to these upgrades. SPP indicated that the impact to customers will be quantified and charges will be implemented in the second half of 2016, including amounts for prior periods. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that are reasonably possible of occurring.

Public Service Co Of Oklahoma [Member]

Rate Matters

RATE MATTERS

The disclosures in this note apply to all Registrants unless indicated otherwise.

As discussed in the 2015 Annual Report, the Registrants are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. The Rate Matters note within the 2015 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 2016 and updates the 2015 Annual Report.

Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval

	AEP
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	161.9	$	—
Storm Related Costs	24.5		24.2
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	20.8		20.9
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.1		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	56.7		59.8
Storm Related Costs	24.3		18.2
Peak Demand Reduction/Energy Efficiency	0.6		13.1
Cook Plant Turbine	11.2		9.7
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	29.9		22.0
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	331.0	$	167.9

	APCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	$	9.2	$	9.3
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	29.6		32.7
Peak Demand Reduction/Energy Efficiency - Virginia	—		12.7
Amos Plant Transfer Costs - West Virginia	—		2.0
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.6		0.6
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	39.4	$	57.3

	I&M
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	$	11.6	$	11.6
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs - Indiana	27.1		27.1
Cook Plant Turbine	11.2		9.7
Deferred Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project Costs - Michigan	6.2		4.2
Rockport Dry Sorbent Injection System - Indiana	4.5		2.8
Stranded Costs on Retired Plant	3.9		3.9
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.4		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	64.9	$	59.3

	OPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
gridSMART® Costs	$	3.0	$	1.3
OVEC Purchased Power	2.5		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	5.5	$	1.3

	PSO
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	86.5	$	—
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	0.5		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm Related Costs	18.0		12.3
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.4		1.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	106.4	$	13.4

	SWEPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	75.4	$	—
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	0.5		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Shipe Road Transmission Project - FERC	3.1		3.1
Asset Retirement Obligation - Arkansas, Louisiana	2.2		1.7
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.6		1.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	82.8	$	5.9

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

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

2016 West Virginia Expanded Net Energy Cost Filing

In March 2016, APCo and WPCo filed their combined annual ENEC filing with the WVPSC requesting an increase in ENEC rates of $108 million ($86 million related to APCo) to be effective July 2016. The increase primarily relates to recovery of the December 2015 under-recovered ENEC deferral balance and the recovery of costs associated with the continuation and expansion of certain transmission and generation construction projects.

In June 2016, APCo, WPCo and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the WVPSC. The proposed settlement included $38 million ($30 million related to APCo) of additional ENEC revenues and $17 million ($14 million related to APCo) in construction surcharges annually for two years, effective July 2016. Additionally, APCo and WPCo agreed that a general rate case will not be filed before April 2018. In June 2016, the WVPSC approved the settlement agreement.

West Virginia Deferred Base Rate Increase

In May 2015, the WVPSC issued an order on APCo and WPCo’s combined base rate case. The order included a delayed billing of $25 million ($22 million related to APCo) of the annual base rate increase to residential customers until July 2016. The order provided for carrying charges based upon a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) rate for the $25 million annual delayed billing through June 2016. In February 2016, APCo and WPCo filed a petition with the WVPSC to implement recovery of the unrecognized delayed billing totaling $29 million ($26 million related to APCo), which included carrying charges through June 2016. Recovery of the delayed billing was requested over two years, beginning July 2016, with the unpaid principal subject to carrying charges.

In June 2016, the WVPSC issued an order that approved recovery of the total deferred billing, including carrying charges through June 2018, totaling $29 million ($27 million related to APCo). Recovery was approved over two years, effective July 2016. Additionally, at the end of the two-year amortization, any over/under-recovery of the delay billing will be included in the annual ENEC filing. The WVPSC also approved implementation of the prospective $25 million base rate increase effective July 2016.

2015 Virginia Regulatory Asset Proceeding

In 2015, the Virginia SCC initiated a proceeding to address the proper treatment of APCo’s authorized regulatory assets. Briefs related to this proceeding were filed by various parties. The Virginia SCC has no statutory deadline to issue its decision in this proceeding. As of June 30, 2016, APCo’s authorized regulatory assets under review in this proceeding were $7 million. 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.

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 amendments provide 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 asset impairments related to new carbon emission guidelines issued by the Federal EPA.

In February 2016, certain APCo industrial customers filed a petition with the Virginia SCC requesting the issuance of a declaratory order that finds the amendments to Virginia law suspending biennial reviews unconstitutional and, accordingly, directs APCo to make biennial review filings beginning in 2016. In February 2016, APCo filed a motion to stay the Virginia SCC’s consideration of the petition due to a pending appeal at the Supreme Court of Virginia by industrial customers of a non-related utility regarding the constitutionality of the amendments. In May 2016, these industrial customers withdrew their appeal at the Supreme Court of Virginia. In July 2016, the Virginia SCC issued an order that denied the petition filed by the APCo industrial customers. Also in July 2016, these APCo industrial customers filed with the Virginia SCC a Notice of Appeal of the order to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

ETT Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

ETT Interim Transmission Rates

Parent has a 50% equity ownership interest in ETT. Predominantly all of ETT’s revenues are based on interim rate changes that can be filed twice annually and are subject to review and possible true-up in the next filed base rate proceeding. As of June 30, 2016, AEP’s share of ETT’s cumulative revenues, subject to review, is estimated to be $505 million based upon interim rate increases received from 2009 through 2015. In November 2015, the PUCT ordered ETT to file a base rate case by February 2017. A base rate review could produce a refund if ETT incurs a disallowance of the transmission investment on which an interim increase was based. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring. A refund of interim transmission rates could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

KGPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

Kingsport Base Rate Case

In January 2016, KGPCo filed a request with the TRA to increase base rates by $12 million annually based upon a proposed return on common equity of 10.66%. In June 2016, intervenor testimony was filed at the TRA. Intervenor testimony recommended a $7 million annual increase in base rates with an 8.8% return on common equity. A hearing at the TRA is scheduled for August 2016. If KGPCo does not recover its costs, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

OPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and OPCo)

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 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate proceeding which implemented a PIRR to recover OPCo’s 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 WACC rate. In June 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision that reversed the PUCO order on the carrying cost rate issue. In October 2015 this matter was remanded back to the PUCO for reinstatement of the WACC rate.

In May 2016, OPCo filed a proposed increase to the PIRR rates with the PUCO, in accordance with the June 2015 Supreme Court of Ohio ruling. The proposed increase to PIRR rates included $146 million in additional carrying charges and $40 million in additional under-recovered fuel costs resulting from a decrease in customer demand. OPCo requested the proposed increase be effective July 2016 through December 2018. In June 2016, the PUCO issued an order that approved OPCo’s proposed increase to the PIRR rates.

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. In 2013, this ruling was generally upheld in PUCO rehearing orders.

In July 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate capacity proceeding requiring OPCo to 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 included reserve margins, was approximately $34/MW day through May 2014 and $150/MW day from June 2014 through May 2015. In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued two opinions related to the deferral of OPCo’s capacity charges. In one of the opinions, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the PUCO must reconsider an energy credit that was used to determine OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold of $188.88/MW day during the August 2012 through May 2015 period. The PUCO reduced OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold to $188.88/MW day largely due to an offset for an energy credit of $147.41/MW day. The Supreme Court of Ohio directed the PUCO to substantively address OPCo’s arguments that the $147.41/MW day credit was overstated by approximately$100/MW day due to various inaccuracies affecting input data and assumptions.

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 April 2015, the PUCO issued an order that modified and approved OPCo’s July 2014 application to collect the unrecovered portion of the deferred capacity costs. 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. As of June 30, 2016, OPCo’s net deferred capacity costs balance of $285 million, including debt carrying costs, was recorded in Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet. In April 2016, the second Supreme Court of Ohio opinion rejected a portion of OPCo’s RSR revenues collected during the period September 2012 through May 2015 and directed the PUCO to reduce OPCo’s deferred capacity costs by these previously collected RSR revenues. The Supreme Court of Ohio was not able to determine the amount of the reduction to OPCo’s deferred capacity costs and remanded the issue to the PUCO to determine the appropriate reduction. As directed by the PUCO, in May 2016, OPCo submitted revised RSR tariffs that reflect the RSR being collected subject to refund.

In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio also ruled favorably on OPCo’s cross-appeal regarding a previously PUCO-imposed SEET threshold under the ESP and remanded this issue to the PUCO. See “Significantly Excessive Earnings Test Filings” section below.

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 November 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo’s competitive bid process with modifications. 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 with the PUCO for the period August 2012 through May 2015. 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.

In June 2016, OPCo filed a request with the PUCO that requested a consolidated procedural schedule to resolve interrelated proceedings including (a) OPCo’s deferral of capacity costs for the period August 2012 through May 2015, (b) the implementation of OPCo’s RSR and (c) the concerns related to the recovery of fixed fuel costs through both the FAC and the approved capacity charges. As part of the filing, OPCo requested that its net deferred capacity costs balance as of May 31, 2015 increase by $157 million, including carrying charges through September 2016. This net increase consists of a $327 million decrease due to the non-deferral portion of the RSR collections and an increase of $484 million for the correction of the energy credit. Recovery of the $157 million was requested to be effective October 2016 through December 2018. Additionally, OPCo filed testimony supporting the position that double recovery of fixed fuel costs could not have occurred because OPCo was unable to fully recover its capacity costs, which included fixed fuel costs, even with a corrected energy credit.

Due to the interrelated nature of these two Supreme Court of Ohio opinions that directly relate to OPCo’s deferred capacity costs, management believes that the PUCO will rule upon these issues together. Further, management believes that the net impact of these issues will not result in a material future reduction of OPCo’s net income.

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 Including PPA Application and Proposed ESP Extension through 2024

In 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 also included a 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 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, the PUCO issued an order on rehearing that increased the DIR rate caps and deferred ruling on all requests for rehearing related to the establishment of the PPA rider. In July 2015, the PUCO granted OPCo’s and various intervenors’ requests for rehearing related to the May 2015 order.

In May 2015, OPCo filed an amended PPA application that (a) included OPCo’s OVEC contractual entitlement (OVEC PPA), (b) addressed the PPA requirements set forth in the PUCO’s February 2015 order and (c) included the 2,671 MW to be available for capacity, energy and ancillary services, produced by AGR over the lives of the respective generating units (Affiliate PPA).

In March 2016, a contested stipulation agreement related to the PPA rider application was modified and approved by the PUCO. The approved PPA rider is effective April 2016 through May 2024, with quarterly PPA rider reconciliations to actual PPA costs compared to PJM market revenues, subject to audit and review by the PUCO. The stipulation agreement, as approved, included:

(a) an Affiliate PPA between OPCo and AGR to be included in the PPA rider,

(b) OPCo’s OVEC PPA to be included in the PPA rider,

(c) potential additional contingent customer credits of up to $100 million to be included in the PPA rider over the final four years of the PPA rider,

(d) a temporary customer-specific rate impact cap of 5% through May 2018,

(e) an agreement to retire, refuel or repower to 100% natural gas, Conesville Plant, Units 5 and 6 and Cardinal Plant, Unit 1 by 2029 and 2030, respectively,

(f) a directive that OPCo will not seek recovery from customers for any costs associated with the retirement, refueling, co-firing or repowering of PPA units,

(g) the limitation that OPCo will not flow through any capacity performance penalties or bonuses through the PPA rider,

(h) the right for the PUCO to exclude costs associated with a forced outage lasting longer than 90 days and

(i) the right for the PUCO to re-evaluate or modify the PPA rider if there is a change to PJM’s tariffs or rules that prohibits a PPA unit from being bid into PJM auctions.

Additionally, subject to cost recovery and PUCO approval, OPCo agreed to develop and implement, by 2021, a solar energy project(s) of at least 400 MW and a wind energy project(s) of at least 500 MW, with 100% of all output to be received by OPCo. AEP affiliates could own up to 50% of these solar and wind projects. OPCo agreed to file a carbon reduction plan with the PUCO by December 2016 that will focus on fuel diversification and carbon emission reductions.

In March 2016, a group of merchant generation owners filed a complaint at the FERC against PJM seeking revisions to the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) in PJM’s tariff. Although the complaint requested the FERC act in advance of the May 2016 Base Residual Auction for the 2019/2020 delivery year, the complaint is still pending without a decision from the FERC. If approved as proposed, the revised MOPR could affect future bidding behavior for units with cost recovery mechanisms.

In April 2016, the FERC issued an order granting a January 2016 complaint filed against AGR and OPCo.  The FERC order rescinded the waivers of the FERC’s affiliate rules as to the Affiliate PPA between AGR and OPCo.  As a result, AGR and OPCo cannot implement the Affiliate PPA without the FERC review, in accordance with FERC’s rules governing affiliate transactions.  As a result of the April 2016 FERC order, management does not intend to pursue the Affiliate PPA.

In May 2016, OPCo filed an application for rehearing with the PUCO related to certain aspects of the March 2016 PUCO order. The application included a proposed OVEC-only PPA Rider that included an option for the rider to be bypassable. The proposed OVEC-only PPA Rider included (a) the elimination of the PUCO-imposed customer-specific rate impact cap of 5% through May 2018, (b) modifications to proportionately decrease the amount of the potential customer credits and (c) the inclusion of PJM capacity performance penalties within the PPA rider. Also in May 2016, intervenors filed applications for rehearing with the PUCO opposing the modified and approved stipulation agreement.

Management seeks to maintain, subject to requested modifications, the commitments approved as part of the original PPA order despite the fact that the proposed Affiliate PPA is no longer included following the FERC’s order rescinding the waiver of affiliate rules. OPCo has the option to exercise its right to withdraw from the PPA stipulation at any time.

Consistent with the terms of the modified and approved stipulation agreement, in May 2016, OPCo filed an amended ESP that proposed to extend the ESP through May 2024. The amended ESP included (a) an extension of the PPA rider, which includes only OPCo’s entitlements to its ownership percentage of OVEC, (b) a proposed 10.41% return on common equity, (c) the continuation of riders previously approved in the June 2015 - May 2018 ESP, (d) proposed increases in rate caps related to OPCo’s DIR and (e) the addition of various new riders, including a Generation Resource Rider.

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

Background

Ohio law provides for the return of significantly excessive earnings to ratepayers upon PUCO review. Significantly excessive earnings are measured by whether the earned return on common equity of the electric distribution utility is significantly in excess of the return on common equity that was earned during the same period by publicly traded companies, including utilities, that face comparable business and financial risk.

2009 SEET Filing

In 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 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^® (gridSMART^® Phase II) program was filed with the PUCO which included a proposed project to satisfy the PUCO 2009 SEET directive. In April 2016, a stipulation agreement related to the gridSMART^® Phase II program was filed with the PUCO. As part of the stipulation agreement, OPCo will invest at least $20 million over a six-year period for the installation of Volt VAR Optimization (VVO) technology on selected circuits throughout OPCo’s service territory. All parties to the stipulation agree that OPCo’s proposed VVO investment resolves OPCo’s outstanding obligation for renewable or similar investment associated with the PUCO’s 2009 SEET directive. A hearing at the PUCO is scheduled for August 2016.

2014 SEET Filing

The PUCO established an annual SEET earnings threshold of 12% during the June 2012 - May 2015 ESP period. In May 2013, OPCo filed a cross appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio, asserting that the SEET threshold would not be based on the earnings of comparable publicly traded companies as originally required by the SEET statute. In June 2015, OPCo submitted its SEET filings for 2014 with the PUCO.

In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with OPCo’s cross-appeal assertion that a 12% SEET threshold was not based on the applicable Ohio SEET statute. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the 12% threshold and remanded this issue to the PUCO. A hearing at the PUCO is scheduled for September 2016. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of 2014 SEET requirements.

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. In OPCo’s 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 filing to approve recovery of the deferral under the interim agreement.

To the extent amounts discussed above are refunded to customers, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

PSO Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and PSO)

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 of 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 common equity of 10.5% effective in January 2016. The proposed $44 million increase related to environmental investments was effective in March 2016, after the Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls were placed 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, 2016, PSO had incurred costs of $179 million and $41 million, including AFUDC, for Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and Comanche Plant, respectively.

In addition, the filing also notified the OCC that the incremental replacement capacity and energy costs, including the first year effects of new PPAs, estimated to be $35 million, will be incurred related to the environmental compliance plan due to the closure of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, which would be recovered through the FAC. In April 2016, Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 was retired. Upon retirement, $87 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4. These regulatory assets are pending regulatory approval.

In October 2015, testimony was filed by OCC staff and intervenors with recommendations that included increases to base rates and/or the proposed environmental rider ranging from $10 million to $31 million, based upon returns on common equity ranging from 8.75% to 9.3%, and increases to depreciation expense ranging from $23 million to $46 million. Additionally, recommendations by certain intervenors included (a) no recovery of PSO’s investment in Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls, (b) no recovery of the plant balances at the time the units are retired in 2016 and 2026, (c) denial of returns on the book values after the retirement dates, or to be set at only the cost of debt, and (d) the disallowance of the capacity costs associated with the PPAs. Additionally, some intervenors recommended no change in depreciation lives for Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4. These units are currently being depreciated through 2040. Hearings at the OCC were held in December 2015. In January 2016, PSO implemented an interim annual base rate increase of $75 million. These interim rates are subject to refund pending a final order from the OCC related to the initial $137 million request.

In June 2016, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a report related to PSO’s base rate case filing. The ALJ recommended a 9.25% return on common equity. The ALJ found that PSO’s environmental compliance plan is prudent, but had conflicting recommendations regarding cost recovery in this case and recommended an investment cap of $210 million on environmental controls installed at Northeastern Plant, Unit 3. Additionally, the ALJ recommendations included (a) a $17 million increase in depreciation expense, (b) continued depreciation of Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4 through 2040 (no accelerated depreciation), (c) return of, but no return on, the remaining net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, (d) disallowance of the requested environmental consumables through the FAC indicating that these amounts are not considered fuel and should be recovered through base rates in the next base rate case, (e) elimination of the rider to recover advanced metering starting in December 2016, without inclusion in base rates and (f) elimination of the system reliability rider through consolidation in base rates, without addressing a transition for recovery of rider costs, including deferred costs.

In June 2016, PSO, the OCC staff, the Attorney General and intervenors filed exceptions to the ALJ report. PSO’s response included numerous exceptions related to the ALJ recommendations including the lack of a return on the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4. Additionally, PSO requested the OCC remand the report for further clarification. The OCC staff filed exceptions that supported the full recovery of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 and recommended a $32 million increase in annual revenues. In July 2016, the OCC ordered the ALJ to submit a supplemental report clarifying the recommendations.

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

SWEPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and SWEPCo)

2012 Texas Base Rate Case

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

Upon rehearing in 2014, the PUCT reversed its initial ruling and determined that AFUDC was excluded from the Turk Plant’s Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap. As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2013, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of previously recorded regulatory disallowances. The resulting annual base rate increase was approximately $52 million. In May 2014, intervenors filed appeals of that order with the Texas District Court. In June 2014, SWEPCo intervened in those appeals.

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, 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 prudence review of the Turk Plant. The settlement also provided that the LPSC would review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo would 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. A hearing at the LPSC related to the Turk Plant prudence review is scheduled for November 2016. 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 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 used to serve Louisiana customers in 2015 due to the expiration of a purchased 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, subject to staff review of the cost of service and prudence review of the Turk Plant. In July 2016, the LPSC approved a settlement agreement related to the staff review of the cost of service. A portion of the rates remain subject to refund based on the prudence review of the Turk Plant, see “2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing” above. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of this settlement agreement. 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.

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 was 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 - Environmental Impact

Management currently estimates that the investment necessary to meet proposed environmental regulations through 2025 for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 could cost approximately $850 million, excluding AFUDC. As part of this investment, SWEPCo has completed construction of the environmental control projects to meet Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 at a cost of approximately $370 million, excluding AFUDC.  Management continues to evaluate the impact of environmental rules and related project cost estimates. As of June 30, 2016, SWEPCo had incurred costs of $389 million, including AFUDC, and had remaining contractual construction obligations of $20 million related to these projects.  In March 2016, SWEPCo filed a request with the APSC to recover $69 million in environmental costs related to the Arkansas retail jurisdictional share of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3. SWEPCo began recovering the Arkansas jurisdictional share of these costs in March 2016, subject to review in the next filed base rate proceeding. SWEPCo will seek recovery of the remaining project costs from customers at the state commissions and the FERC.

As of June 30, 2016, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $631 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.  In April 2016, Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was retired. Upon retirement, $76 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2 and the related asset retirement obligation costs. Management will seek recovery of the remaining regulatory assets in future rate proceedings.

If any of these costs are not recoverable, including retirement-related costs for Welsh Plant, Unit 2, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

TCC Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

TCC Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF)

In April 2016, TCC filed a request with the PUCT for approval of a DCRF rider to allow recovery of eligible net distribution investments.  The request included a revenue requirement of $54 million to be effective September 2016.  Amounts approved would be subject to refund based upon a prudence review of the investments in TCC’s next base rate case. In June 2016, TCC and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the PUCT. The settlement agreement included a proposed annual revenue requirement of $45 million, effective September 2016. In July 2016, the PUCT approved the settlement agreement.

TNC Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

TNC Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF)

In April 2016, TNC filed a request with the PUCT for approval of a DCRF rider to allow recovery of eligible net distribution investments. The request included a revenue requirement of $16 million to be effective September 2016. Amounts approved would be subject to refund based upon a prudence review of the investments in TNC’s next base rate case. In June 2016, TNC and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the PUCT. The settlement agreement included a proposed annual revenue requirement of $11 million, effective September 2016. In July 2016, the PUCT approved the settlement agreement.

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

SPP Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) Upgrade Costs

Under the SPP OATT, costs of sponsor-funded transmission upgrades may be recovered, in part, from SPP customers whose transmission service is dependent upon capacity enabled by the upgrades. SPP has not charged its customers any amounts attributable to these upgrades. SPP indicated that the impact to customers will be quantified and charges will be implemented in the second half of 2016, including amounts for prior periods. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that are reasonably possible of occurring.

Southwestern Electric Power Co [Member]

Rate Matters

RATE MATTERS

The disclosures in this note apply to all Registrants unless indicated otherwise.

As discussed in the 2015 Annual Report, the Registrants are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. The Rate Matters note within the 2015 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 2016 and updates the 2015 Annual Report.

Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval

	AEP
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	161.9	$	—
Storm Related Costs	24.5		24.2
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	20.8		20.9
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.1		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	56.7		59.8
Storm Related Costs	24.3		18.2
Peak Demand Reduction/Energy Efficiency	0.6		13.1
Cook Plant Turbine	11.2		9.7
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	29.9		22.0
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	331.0	$	167.9

	APCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	$	9.2	$	9.3
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	29.6		32.7
Peak Demand Reduction/Energy Efficiency - Virginia	—		12.7
Amos Plant Transfer Costs - West Virginia	—		2.0
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.6		0.6
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	39.4	$	57.3

	I&M
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	$	11.6	$	11.6
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs - Indiana	27.1		27.1
Cook Plant Turbine	11.2		9.7
Deferred Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project Costs - Michigan	6.2		4.2
Rockport Dry Sorbent Injection System - Indiana	4.5		2.8
Stranded Costs on Retired Plant	3.9		3.9
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.4		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	64.9	$	59.3

	OPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
gridSMART® Costs	$	3.0	$	1.3
OVEC Purchased Power	2.5		—
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	5.5	$	1.3

	PSO
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	86.5	$	—
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	0.5		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm Related Costs	18.0		12.3
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.4		1.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	106.4	$	13.4

	SWEPCo
	June 30,		December 31,
	2016		2015
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)
Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	75.4	$	—
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	0.5		—
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Shipe Road Transmission Project - FERC	3.1		3.1
Asset Retirement Obligation - Arkansas, Louisiana	2.2		1.7
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	1.6		1.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	82.8	$	5.9

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

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

2016 West Virginia Expanded Net Energy Cost Filing

In March 2016, APCo and WPCo filed their combined annual ENEC filing with the WVPSC requesting an increase in ENEC rates of $108 million ($86 million related to APCo) to be effective July 2016. The increase primarily relates to recovery of the December 2015 under-recovered ENEC deferral balance and the recovery of costs associated with the continuation and expansion of certain transmission and generation construction projects.

In June 2016, APCo, WPCo and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the WVPSC. The proposed settlement included $38 million ($30 million related to APCo) of additional ENEC revenues and $17 million ($14 million related to APCo) in construction surcharges annually for two years, effective July 2016. Additionally, APCo and WPCo agreed that a general rate case will not be filed before April 2018. In June 2016, the WVPSC approved the settlement agreement.

West Virginia Deferred Base Rate Increase

In May 2015, the WVPSC issued an order on APCo and WPCo’s combined base rate case. The order included a delayed billing of $25 million ($22 million related to APCo) of the annual base rate increase to residential customers until July 2016. The order provided for carrying charges based upon a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) rate for the $25 million annual delayed billing through June 2016. In February 2016, APCo and WPCo filed a petition with the WVPSC to implement recovery of the unrecognized delayed billing totaling $29 million ($26 million related to APCo), which included carrying charges through June 2016. Recovery of the delayed billing was requested over two years, beginning July 2016, with the unpaid principal subject to carrying charges.

In June 2016, the WVPSC issued an order that approved recovery of the total deferred billing, including carrying charges through June 2018, totaling $29 million ($27 million related to APCo). Recovery was approved over two years, effective July 2016. Additionally, at the end of the two-year amortization, any over/under-recovery of the delay billing will be included in the annual ENEC filing. The WVPSC also approved implementation of the prospective $25 million base rate increase effective July 2016.

2015 Virginia Regulatory Asset Proceeding

In 2015, the Virginia SCC initiated a proceeding to address the proper treatment of APCo’s authorized regulatory assets. Briefs related to this proceeding were filed by various parties. The Virginia SCC has no statutory deadline to issue its decision in this proceeding. As of June 30, 2016, APCo’s authorized regulatory assets under review in this proceeding were $7 million. 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.

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 amendments provide 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 asset impairments related to new carbon emission guidelines issued by the Federal EPA.

In February 2016, certain APCo industrial customers filed a petition with the Virginia SCC requesting the issuance of a declaratory order that finds the amendments to Virginia law suspending biennial reviews unconstitutional and, accordingly, directs APCo to make biennial review filings beginning in 2016. In February 2016, APCo filed a motion to stay the Virginia SCC’s consideration of the petition due to a pending appeal at the Supreme Court of Virginia by industrial customers of a non-related utility regarding the constitutionality of the amendments. In May 2016, these industrial customers withdrew their appeal at the Supreme Court of Virginia. In July 2016, the Virginia SCC issued an order that denied the petition filed by the APCo industrial customers. Also in July 2016, these APCo industrial customers filed with the Virginia SCC a Notice of Appeal of the order to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

ETT Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

ETT Interim Transmission Rates

Parent has a 50% equity ownership interest in ETT. Predominantly all of ETT’s revenues are based on interim rate changes that can be filed twice annually and are subject to review and possible true-up in the next filed base rate proceeding. As of June 30, 2016, AEP’s share of ETT’s cumulative revenues, subject to review, is estimated to be $505 million based upon interim rate increases received from 2009 through 2015. In November 2015, the PUCT ordered ETT to file a base rate case by February 2017. A base rate review could produce a refund if ETT incurs a disallowance of the transmission investment on which an interim increase was based. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring. A refund of interim transmission rates could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

KGPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

Kingsport Base Rate Case

In January 2016, KGPCo filed a request with the TRA to increase base rates by $12 million annually based upon a proposed return on common equity of 10.66%. In June 2016, intervenor testimony was filed at the TRA. Intervenor testimony recommended a $7 million annual increase in base rates with an 8.8% return on common equity. A hearing at the TRA is scheduled for August 2016. If KGPCo does not recover its costs, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

OPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and OPCo)

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 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate proceeding which implemented a PIRR to recover OPCo’s 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 WACC rate. In June 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision that reversed the PUCO order on the carrying cost rate issue. In October 2015 this matter was remanded back to the PUCO for reinstatement of the WACC rate.

In May 2016, OPCo filed a proposed increase to the PIRR rates with the PUCO, in accordance with the June 2015 Supreme Court of Ohio ruling. The proposed increase to PIRR rates included $146 million in additional carrying charges and $40 million in additional under-recovered fuel costs resulting from a decrease in customer demand. OPCo requested the proposed increase be effective July 2016 through December 2018. In June 2016, the PUCO issued an order that approved OPCo’s proposed increase to the PIRR rates.

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. In 2013, this ruling was generally upheld in PUCO rehearing orders.

In July 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate capacity proceeding requiring OPCo to 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 included reserve margins, was approximately $34/MW day through May 2014 and $150/MW day from June 2014 through May 2015. In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued two opinions related to the deferral of OPCo’s capacity charges. In one of the opinions, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the PUCO must reconsider an energy credit that was used to determine OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold of $188.88/MW day during the August 2012 through May 2015 period. The PUCO reduced OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold to $188.88/MW day largely due to an offset for an energy credit of $147.41/MW day. The Supreme Court of Ohio directed the PUCO to substantively address OPCo’s arguments that the $147.41/MW day credit was overstated by approximately$100/MW day due to various inaccuracies affecting input data and assumptions.

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 April 2015, the PUCO issued an order that modified and approved OPCo’s July 2014 application to collect the unrecovered portion of the deferred capacity costs. 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. As of June 30, 2016, OPCo’s net deferred capacity costs balance of $285 million, including debt carrying costs, was recorded in Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet. In April 2016, the second Supreme Court of Ohio opinion rejected a portion of OPCo’s RSR revenues collected during the period September 2012 through May 2015 and directed the PUCO to reduce OPCo’s deferred capacity costs by these previously collected RSR revenues. The Supreme Court of Ohio was not able to determine the amount of the reduction to OPCo’s deferred capacity costs and remanded the issue to the PUCO to determine the appropriate reduction. As directed by the PUCO, in May 2016, OPCo submitted revised RSR tariffs that reflect the RSR being collected subject to refund.

In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio also ruled favorably on OPCo’s cross-appeal regarding a previously PUCO-imposed SEET threshold under the ESP and remanded this issue to the PUCO. See “Significantly Excessive Earnings Test Filings” section below.

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 November 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo’s competitive bid process with modifications. 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 with the PUCO for the period August 2012 through May 2015. 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.

In June 2016, OPCo filed a request with the PUCO that requested a consolidated procedural schedule to resolve interrelated proceedings including (a) OPCo’s deferral of capacity costs for the period August 2012 through May 2015, (b) the implementation of OPCo’s RSR and (c) the concerns related to the recovery of fixed fuel costs through both the FAC and the approved capacity charges. As part of the filing, OPCo requested that its net deferred capacity costs balance as of May 31, 2015 increase by $157 million, including carrying charges through September 2016. This net increase consists of a $327 million decrease due to the non-deferral portion of the RSR collections and an increase of $484 million for the correction of the energy credit. Recovery of the $157 million was requested to be effective October 2016 through December 2018. Additionally, OPCo filed testimony supporting the position that double recovery of fixed fuel costs could not have occurred because OPCo was unable to fully recover its capacity costs, which included fixed fuel costs, even with a corrected energy credit.

Due to the interrelated nature of these two Supreme Court of Ohio opinions that directly relate to OPCo’s deferred capacity costs, management believes that the PUCO will rule upon these issues together. Further, management believes that the net impact of these issues will not result in a material future reduction of OPCo’s net income.

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 Including PPA Application and Proposed ESP Extension through 2024

In 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 also included a 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 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, the PUCO issued an order on rehearing that increased the DIR rate caps and deferred ruling on all requests for rehearing related to the establishment of the PPA rider. In July 2015, the PUCO granted OPCo’s and various intervenors’ requests for rehearing related to the May 2015 order.

In May 2015, OPCo filed an amended PPA application that (a) included OPCo’s OVEC contractual entitlement (OVEC PPA), (b) addressed the PPA requirements set forth in the PUCO’s February 2015 order and (c) included the 2,671 MW to be available for capacity, energy and ancillary services, produced by AGR over the lives of the respective generating units (Affiliate PPA).

In March 2016, a contested stipulation agreement related to the PPA rider application was modified and approved by the PUCO. The approved PPA rider is effective April 2016 through May 2024, with quarterly PPA rider reconciliations to actual PPA costs compared to PJM market revenues, subject to audit and review by the PUCO. The stipulation agreement, as approved, included:

(a) an Affiliate PPA between OPCo and AGR to be included in the PPA rider,

(b) OPCo’s OVEC PPA to be included in the PPA rider,

(c) potential additional contingent customer credits of up to $100 million to be included in the PPA rider over the final four years of the PPA rider,

(d) a temporary customer-specific rate impact cap of 5% through May 2018,

(e) an agreement to retire, refuel or repower to 100% natural gas, Conesville Plant, Units 5 and 6 and Cardinal Plant, Unit 1 by 2029 and 2030, respectively,

(f) a directive that OPCo will not seek recovery from customers for any costs associated with the retirement, refueling, co-firing or repowering of PPA units,

(g) the limitation that OPCo will not flow through any capacity performance penalties or bonuses through the PPA rider,

(h) the right for the PUCO to exclude costs associated with a forced outage lasting longer than 90 days and

(i) the right for the PUCO to re-evaluate or modify the PPA rider if there is a change to PJM’s tariffs or rules that prohibits a PPA unit from being bid into PJM auctions.

Additionally, subject to cost recovery and PUCO approval, OPCo agreed to develop and implement, by 2021, a solar energy project(s) of at least 400 MW and a wind energy project(s) of at least 500 MW, with 100% of all output to be received by OPCo. AEP affiliates could own up to 50% of these solar and wind projects. OPCo agreed to file a carbon reduction plan with the PUCO by December 2016 that will focus on fuel diversification and carbon emission reductions.

In March 2016, a group of merchant generation owners filed a complaint at the FERC against PJM seeking revisions to the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) in PJM’s tariff. Although the complaint requested the FERC act in advance of the May 2016 Base Residual Auction for the 2019/2020 delivery year, the complaint is still pending without a decision from the FERC. If approved as proposed, the revised MOPR could affect future bidding behavior for units with cost recovery mechanisms.

In April 2016, the FERC issued an order granting a January 2016 complaint filed against AGR and OPCo.  The FERC order rescinded the waivers of the FERC’s affiliate rules as to the Affiliate PPA between AGR and OPCo.  As a result, AGR and OPCo cannot implement the Affiliate PPA without the FERC review, in accordance with FERC’s rules governing affiliate transactions.  As a result of the April 2016 FERC order, management does not intend to pursue the Affiliate PPA.

In May 2016, OPCo filed an application for rehearing with the PUCO related to certain aspects of the March 2016 PUCO order. The application included a proposed OVEC-only PPA Rider that included an option for the rider to be bypassable. The proposed OVEC-only PPA Rider included (a) the elimination of the PUCO-imposed customer-specific rate impact cap of 5% through May 2018, (b) modifications to proportionately decrease the amount of the potential customer credits and (c) the inclusion of PJM capacity performance penalties within the PPA rider. Also in May 2016, intervenors filed applications for rehearing with the PUCO opposing the modified and approved stipulation agreement.

Management seeks to maintain, subject to requested modifications, the commitments approved as part of the original PPA order despite the fact that the proposed Affiliate PPA is no longer included following the FERC’s order rescinding the waiver of affiliate rules. OPCo has the option to exercise its right to withdraw from the PPA stipulation at any time.

Consistent with the terms of the modified and approved stipulation agreement, in May 2016, OPCo filed an amended ESP that proposed to extend the ESP through May 2024. The amended ESP included (a) an extension of the PPA rider, which includes only OPCo’s entitlements to its ownership percentage of OVEC, (b) a proposed 10.41% return on common equity, (c) the continuation of riders previously approved in the June 2015 - May 2018 ESP, (d) proposed increases in rate caps related to OPCo’s DIR and (e) the addition of various new riders, including a Generation Resource Rider.

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

Background

Ohio law provides for the return of significantly excessive earnings to ratepayers upon PUCO review. Significantly excessive earnings are measured by whether the earned return on common equity of the electric distribution utility is significantly in excess of the return on common equity that was earned during the same period by publicly traded companies, including utilities, that face comparable business and financial risk.

2009 SEET Filing

In 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 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^® (gridSMART^® Phase II) program was filed with the PUCO which included a proposed project to satisfy the PUCO 2009 SEET directive. In April 2016, a stipulation agreement related to the gridSMART^® Phase II program was filed with the PUCO. As part of the stipulation agreement, OPCo will invest at least $20 million over a six-year period for the installation of Volt VAR Optimization (VVO) technology on selected circuits throughout OPCo’s service territory. All parties to the stipulation agree that OPCo’s proposed VVO investment resolves OPCo’s outstanding obligation for renewable or similar investment associated with the PUCO’s 2009 SEET directive. A hearing at the PUCO is scheduled for August 2016.

2014 SEET Filing

The PUCO established an annual SEET earnings threshold of 12% during the June 2012 - May 2015 ESP period. In May 2013, OPCo filed a cross appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio, asserting that the SEET threshold would not be based on the earnings of comparable publicly traded companies as originally required by the SEET statute. In June 2015, OPCo submitted its SEET filings for 2014 with the PUCO.

In April 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with OPCo’s cross-appeal assertion that a 12% SEET threshold was not based on the applicable Ohio SEET statute. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the 12% threshold and remanded this issue to the PUCO. A hearing at the PUCO is scheduled for September 2016. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of 2014 SEET requirements.

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. In OPCo’s 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 filing to approve recovery of the deferral under the interim agreement.

To the extent amounts discussed above are refunded to customers, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

PSO Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and PSO)

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 of 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 common equity of 10.5% effective in January 2016. The proposed $44 million increase related to environmental investments was effective in March 2016, after the Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls were placed 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, 2016, PSO had incurred costs of $179 million and $41 million, including AFUDC, for Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and Comanche Plant, respectively.

In addition, the filing also notified the OCC that the incremental replacement capacity and energy costs, including the first year effects of new PPAs, estimated to be $35 million, will be incurred related to the environmental compliance plan due to the closure of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, which would be recovered through the FAC. In April 2016, Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 was retired. Upon retirement, $87 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4. These regulatory assets are pending regulatory approval.

In October 2015, testimony was filed by OCC staff and intervenors with recommendations that included increases to base rates and/or the proposed environmental rider ranging from $10 million to $31 million, based upon returns on common equity ranging from 8.75% to 9.3%, and increases to depreciation expense ranging from $23 million to $46 million. Additionally, recommendations by certain intervenors included (a) no recovery of PSO’s investment in Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls, (b) no recovery of the plant balances at the time the units are retired in 2016 and 2026, (c) denial of returns on the book values after the retirement dates, or to be set at only the cost of debt, and (d) the disallowance of the capacity costs associated with the PPAs. Additionally, some intervenors recommended no change in depreciation lives for Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4. These units are currently being depreciated through 2040. Hearings at the OCC were held in December 2015. In January 2016, PSO implemented an interim annual base rate increase of $75 million. These interim rates are subject to refund pending a final order from the OCC related to the initial $137 million request.

In June 2016, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a report related to PSO’s base rate case filing. The ALJ recommended a 9.25% return on common equity. The ALJ found that PSO’s environmental compliance plan is prudent, but had conflicting recommendations regarding cost recovery in this case and recommended an investment cap of $210 million on environmental controls installed at Northeastern Plant, Unit 3. Additionally, the ALJ recommendations included (a) a $17 million increase in depreciation expense, (b) continued depreciation of Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4 through 2040 (no accelerated depreciation), (c) return of, but no return on, the remaining net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, (d) disallowance of the requested environmental consumables through the FAC indicating that these amounts are not considered fuel and should be recovered through base rates in the next base rate case, (e) elimination of the rider to recover advanced metering starting in December 2016, without inclusion in base rates and (f) elimination of the system reliability rider through consolidation in base rates, without addressing a transition for recovery of rider costs, including deferred costs.

In June 2016, PSO, the OCC staff, the Attorney General and intervenors filed exceptions to the ALJ report. PSO’s response included numerous exceptions related to the ALJ recommendations including the lack of a return on the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4. Additionally, PSO requested the OCC remand the report for further clarification. The OCC staff filed exceptions that supported the full recovery of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 and recommended a $32 million increase in annual revenues. In July 2016, the OCC ordered the ALJ to submit a supplemental report clarifying the recommendations.

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

SWEPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and SWEPCo)

2012 Texas Base Rate Case

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

Upon rehearing in 2014, the PUCT reversed its initial ruling and determined that AFUDC was excluded from the Turk Plant’s Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap. As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2013, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of previously recorded regulatory disallowances. The resulting annual base rate increase was approximately $52 million. In May 2014, intervenors filed appeals of that order with the Texas District Court. In June 2014, SWEPCo intervened in those appeals.

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, 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 prudence review of the Turk Plant. The settlement also provided that the LPSC would review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo would 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. A hearing at the LPSC related to the Turk Plant prudence review is scheduled for November 2016. 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 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 used to serve Louisiana customers in 2015 due to the expiration of a purchased 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, subject to staff review of the cost of service and prudence review of the Turk Plant. In July 2016, the LPSC approved a settlement agreement related to the staff review of the cost of service. A portion of the rates remain subject to refund based on the prudence review of the Turk Plant, see “2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing” above. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of this settlement agreement. 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.

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 was 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 - Environmental Impact

Management currently estimates that the investment necessary to meet proposed environmental regulations through 2025 for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 could cost approximately $850 million, excluding AFUDC. As part of this investment, SWEPCo has completed construction of the environmental control projects to meet Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 at a cost of approximately $370 million, excluding AFUDC.  Management continues to evaluate the impact of environmental rules and related project cost estimates. As of June 30, 2016, SWEPCo had incurred costs of $389 million, including AFUDC, and had remaining contractual construction obligations of $20 million related to these projects.  In March 2016, SWEPCo filed a request with the APSC to recover $69 million in environmental costs related to the Arkansas retail jurisdictional share of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3. SWEPCo began recovering the Arkansas jurisdictional share of these costs in March 2016, subject to review in the next filed base rate proceeding. SWEPCo will seek recovery of the remaining project costs from customers at the state commissions and the FERC.

As of June 30, 2016, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $631 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.  In April 2016, Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was retired. Upon retirement, $76 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2 and the related asset retirement obligation costs. Management will seek recovery of the remaining regulatory assets in future rate proceedings.

If any of these costs are not recoverable, including retirement-related costs for Welsh Plant, Unit 2, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

TCC Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

TCC Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF)

In April 2016, TCC filed a request with the PUCT for approval of a DCRF rider to allow recovery of eligible net distribution investments.  The request included a revenue requirement of $54 million to be effective September 2016.  Amounts approved would be subject to refund based upon a prudence review of the investments in TCC’s next base rate case. In June 2016, TCC and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the PUCT. The settlement agreement included a proposed annual revenue requirement of $45 million, effective September 2016. In July 2016, the PUCT approved the settlement agreement.

TNC Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

TNC Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF)

In April 2016, TNC filed a request with the PUCT for approval of a DCRF rider to allow recovery of eligible net distribution investments. The request included a revenue requirement of $16 million to be effective September 2016. Amounts approved would be subject to refund based upon a prudence review of the investments in TNC’s next base rate case. In June 2016, TNC and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the PUCT. The settlement agreement included a proposed annual revenue requirement of $11 million, effective September 2016. In July 2016, the PUCT approved the settlement agreement.

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

SPP Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) Upgrade Costs

Under the SPP OATT, costs of sponsor-funded transmission upgrades may be recovered, in part, from SPP customers whose transmission service is dependent upon capacity enabled by the upgrades. SPP has not charged its customers any amounts attributable to these upgrades. SPP indicated that the impact to customers will be quantified and charges will be implemented in the second half of 2016, including amounts for prior periods. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that are reasonably possible of occurring.