RATE MATTERS

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

As discussed in the 2017 Annual Report, the Registrants are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions. The Rate Matters note within the 2017 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 2018 and updates the 2017 Annual Report.

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



	AEP
	March 31,		December 31,
	2018		2017
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)

Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	50.3	$	50.3
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	12.5		9.6
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm Related Costs (a)	130.3		128.0
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	39.7		39.7
Cook Plant Uprate Project	31.1		36.3
Cook Plant Turbine	11.2		15.9
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	32.6		42.2
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval (b)	$	307.7	$	322.0


(a)	As of March 31, 2018, AEP Texas has deferred $105 million related to Hurricane Harvey and is currently exploring recovery options, including securitization.

(b)

In 2015, APCo recorded a $91 million reduction to accumulated depreciation related to the remaining net book value of plants retired in 2015, primarily in its Virginia jurisdiction. These plants were normal retirements at the end of their depreciable lives under the group composite method of depreciation. APCo’s recovery of the remaining Virginia net book value for the retired plants will be considered in the Virginia SCC’s 2020 triennial review of APCo’s generation and distribution base rates. The Virginia SCC staff has requested that APCo prepare a depreciation study as of December 31, 2017 and submit that study to the Virginia SCC staff in 2018.



	AEP Texas
	March 31,		December 31,
	2018		2017
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)

Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm-Related Costs (a)	$	128.7	$	123.3
Rate Case Expense	0.2		0.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	128.9	$	123.4


(a)	As of March 31, 2018, AEP Texas has deferred $105 million related to Hurricane Harvey and is currently exploring recovery options, including securitization.



	APCo
	March 31,		December 31,
	2018		2017
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)

Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Materials and Supplies	$	9.0	$	9.1
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	39.7		39.7
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.6		0.6
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval (a)	$	49.3	$	49.4

(a)



	I&M
	March 31,		December 31,
	2018		2017
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)

Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Cook Plant Uprate Project	$	31.1	$	36.3
Deferred Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project Costs - Michigan	—		14.7
Cook Plant Turbine	11.2		15.9
Rockport Dry Sorbent Injection System - Indiana	11.3		10.4
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	4.5		2.0
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	58.1	$	79.3



	PSO
	March 31,		December 31,
	2018		2017
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)

Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm Related Costs	$	—	$	3.2
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.1		0.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	0.1	$	3.3



	SWEPCo
	March 31,		December 31,
	2018		2017
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)

Regulatory Assets Currently Earning a Return
Plant Retirement Costs - Unrecovered Plant	$	50.3	$	50.3
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	0.5		0.5
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Rate Case Expense - Texas	4.4		4.3
Asset Retirement Obligation - Arkansas, Louisiana	4.3		4.0
Shipe Road Transmission Project - FERC	3.3		3.3
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	2.8		2.5
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	65.6	$	64.9

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

Impact of Tax Reform

Rate and regulatory matters are impacted by federal income tax implications. In December 2017, Tax Reform was enacted, which will impact outstanding rate and regulatory matters. For additional details on the impact of Tax Reform, see Note 11 - Income Taxes.

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

AEP Texas Interim Transmission and Distribution Rates

As of March 31, 2018, AEP Texas’ cumulative revenues from interim base rate increases from 2008 through 2017, subject to review, are estimated to be $830 million. A base rate review could produce a refund if AEP Texas incurs a disallowance of the transmission or distribution investment on which an interim increase was based. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that are reasonably possible of occurring. A revenue decrease, including a refund of interim transmission and distribution rates, could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

In March 2018, AEP Texas filed an application to reduce its transmission rates by $24 million to reflect the lower federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform. The filing did not address the return of excess deferred income tax benefits to customers.

In April 2018, AEP Texas filed an application to amend its Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF). The filing sought to increase revenues by approximately $3 million, which includes capital investment additions of $24 million offset by a reduction of $21 million due to a lower federal income tax rate as a result of Tax Reform. The filing did not address the return of excess deferred income tax benefits to customers. New rates will be effective September 1, 2018.

In April 2018, the PUCT adopted a rule requiring investor-owned utilities operating solely inside ERCOT to make periodic filings for rate proceedings. The proposal requires AEP Texas to file for a comprehensive rate review no later than May 1, 2019.

Hurricane Harvey

In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey hit the coast of Texas, causing power outages in the AEP Texas service territory. AEP Texas has a PUCT approved catastrophe reserve in base rates and can defer incremental storm expenses. AEP Texas currently recovers approximately $1 million of storm costs annually through base rates. As of March 31, 2018, the total balance of AEP Texas’ deferred storm costs is approximately $129 million, inclusive of approximately $105 million of incremental storm expenses recorded as a regulatory asset related to Hurricane Harvey. As of March 31, 2018, AEP Texas has recorded approximately $186 million of capital expenditures related to Hurricane Harvey. Also, as of March 31, 2018, AEP Texas has received $10 million in insurance proceeds, which were applied to the regulatory asset and property, plant and equipment. Management, in conjunction with the insurance adjusters, is reviewing all damages to determine the extent of coverage for additional insurance reimbursement. Any future insurance recoveries received will be applied to and will offset the regulatory asset and property, plant and equipment, as applicable. Management believes the amount recorded as a regulatory asset is probable of recovery and AEP Texas is currently evaluating recovery options for the regulatory asset, including securitization. The standard process for storm cost recovery in Texas requires two filings with the PUCT. Management expects the first filing by the end of the third quarter of 2018. If the ultimate costs of the incident are not recovered by insurance or through the regulatory process, it would have an adverse effect on future net income, cash flows and financial condition.

APCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and APCo)

Virginia Legislation Affecting Earnings Reviews

In 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 were frozen until after the Virginia SCC ruled on APCo’s next biennial review. These amendments also precluded the Virginia SCC from performing biennial reviews of APCo’s earnings for the years 2014 through 2017.

In March 2018, new Virginia legislation impacting investor-owned utilities was enacted, effective July 1, 2018, that will: (a) on a one-time basis, require APCo to exclude $10 million of fuel expenses from the July 2018 over/under calculation, (b) reduce APCo’s base rates by $50 million annually no later than July 30, 2018, on an interim basis and subject to true-up, to reflect the lower federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform, (c) require APCo to file its next generation and distribution base rate case by March 31, 2020 using 2017, 2018 and 2019 test years (“triennial review”), (d) require an adjustment in APCo’s base rates on April 1, 2019 to reflect actual annual reductions in corporate income taxes due to Tax Reform, (e) require APCo to obtain approval from the Virginia SCC for energy efficiency programs with projected costs in the aggregate of at least $140 million over the 10-year period from July 1, 2018 through July 1, 2028 and (f) require APCo to construct and/or acquire solar generation facilities in Virginia of at least 200 MW of aggregate capacity. Triennial reviews are subject to an earnings test which provides that any over earnings may be reinvested in approved energy distribution grid transformation projects. The Virginia SCC’s triennial review of 2017-2019 APCo earnings could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

ETT Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

ETT Interim Transmission Rates

AEP has a 50% equity ownership interest in ETT. Predominantly all of ETT’s revenues are based on interim rate changes that can be filed twice annually and are subject to review and possible true-up in the next filed base rate proceeding. Through March 31, 2018, AEP’s share of ETT’s cumulative revenues that are subject to review is estimated to be $781 million. A base rate review could produce a refund if ETT incurs a disallowance of the transmission investment on which an interim increase was based. A revenue decrease, including a refund of interim transmission rates, could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that are reasonably possible of occurring.

In February 2018, ETT filed an application to reduce its transmission rates by $27 million to reflect the lower federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform. The filing did not address the return of excess deferred income tax benefits to customers.

In April 2018, the PUCT adopted a rule requiring investor-owned utilities operating solely inside ERCOT to make periodic filings for rate proceedings. The rule requires ETT to file for a comprehensive rate review no later than February 1, 2021.

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

2017 Indiana Base Rate Case

In July 2017, I&M filed a request with the IURC for a $263 million annual increase in Indiana rates based upon a proposed 10.6% return on common equity with the annual increase to be implemented after June 2018. Upon implementation, this proposed annual increase would be subject to a temporary offsetting $23 million annual reduction to customer bills through December 2018 for a credit adjustment rider related to the timing of estimated in-service dates of certain capital expenditures. The proposed annual increase includes $78 million related to increased annual depreciation rates and an $11 million increase related to the amortization of certain Cook Plant and Rockport Plant regulatory assets. The increase in depreciation rates includes a change in the expected retirement date for Rockport Plant, Unit 1 from 2044 to 2028 combined with increased investment at the Cook Plant, including the Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project.

In November 2017, various intervenors filed testimony that included annual revenue increase recommendations ranging from $125 million to $152 million. The recommended returns on common equity ranged from 8.65% to 9.1%. In addition, certain parties recommended longer recovery periods than I&M proposed for recovery of regulatory assets and depreciation expenses related to Rockport Plant, Units 1 and 2. In January 2018, in response to a January 2018 IURC request related to the impact of Tax Reform on I&M’s pending base rate case, I&M filed updated schedules supporting a $191 million annual increase in Indiana base rates if the effect of Tax Reform was included in the cost of service.

In February 2018, I&M and all parties to the case, except one industrial customer, filed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement for a $97 million annual increase in Indiana rates effective July 1, 2018 subject to a temporary offsetting reduction to customer bills through December 2018 for a credit rider related to the timing of estimated in-service dates of certain capital expenditures. The one industrial customer agreed to not oppose the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. The difference between I&M’s requested $263 million annual increase and the $97 million annual increase in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement is primarily a result of: (a) the reduction in the federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform, (b) the feedback of credits for excess deferred income taxes, (c) a 9.95% return on equity, (d) longer recovery periods of regulatory assets, (e) lower depreciation expense primarily for meters and (f) an increase in the sharing of off-system sales margins with customers from 50% to 95%. If the Stipulation and Settlement is approved, I&M will also refund $4 million from July through December 2018 for the impact of Tax Reform for the period January through June 2018. A hearing at the IURC was held in March 2018 and an IURC order is expected in the second quarter of 2018. If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2017 Michigan Base Rate Case

In May 2017, I&M filed a request with the MPSC for a $52 million annual increase in Michigan base rates based upon a proposed 10.6% return on common equity with the increase to be implemented no later than April 2018. The proposed annual increase includes $23 million related to increased annual depreciation rates and a $4 million increase related to the amortization of certain Cook Plant regulatory assets. The increase in depreciation rates is primarily due to the proposed change in the expected retirement date for Rockport Plant, Unit 1 from 2044 to 2028 combined with increased investment at the Cook Plant related to the Life Cycle Management Project.

In February 2018, an MPSC ALJ issued a Proposal for Decision and recommended an annual revenue increase of $49 million, including an intervenors’ proposed capacity rate based on PJM’s net cost of new entry value of $289/MW-day and MPSC staff’s recommended calculation of depreciation expense for both units of Rockport Plant through 2028 and a return on common equity of 9.8%. If the maximum 10% of customers choose an alternate supplier starting in February 2019, the estimated annual pretax loss due to the reduced capacity rate would be approximately $9 million until adjusted in the next base rate case.

In April 2018, the MPSC issued an order that generally approved the ALJ proposal resulting in an annual revenue increase of $49 million, effective April 2018 based on a 9.9% return on common equity. The MPSC also approved the ALJ’s recommendation related to the capacity rate.

Rockport Plant, Unit 2 SCR

In October 2016, I&M filed an application with the IURC for approval of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to install SCR technology at Rockport Plant, Unit 2 by December 2019. The equipment will allow I&M to reduce emissions of NO_x from Rockport Plant, Unit 2 in order for I&M to continue to operate that unit under current environmental requirements. The estimated cost of the SCR project is $274 million, excluding AFUDC, to be shared equally between I&M and AEGCo. As of March 31, 2018, total costs incurred related to this project, including AFUDC, were approximately $28 million. The filing included a request for authorization for I&M to defer its Indiana jurisdictional ownership share of costs including investment carrying costs at a weighted average cost of capital (WACC), depreciation over a 10-year period as provided by statute and other related expenses. I&M proposed recovery of these costs using the existing Clean Coal Technology Rider in a future filing subsequent to approval of the SCR project. The AEGCo ownership share of the proposed SCR project will be billable under the Rockport UPA to I&M and KPCo and will be subject to future regulatory approval for recovery.

In March 2018, the IURC issued an order approving: (a) the CPCN, (b) the $274 million estimated cost of the SCR, excluding AFUDC, (c) deferral accounting for the Indiana jurisdictional ownership share of costs, including investment carrying costs, (d) depreciation of the SCR asset over 10 years and (e) recovery of these costs using I&M’s existing Indiana Clean Coal Technology Rider.

In April 2018, a group of intervenors filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Rehearing of the March 2018 IURC order. The intervenors requested that the IURC reopen the proceeding primarily to address whether allowing I&M any cost recovery for the SCR would constitute a cross-subsidization issue and to reverse its finding approving cost recovery for the Rockport Plant, Unit 2 SCR project. Also in April 2018, I&M filed a response to the intervenors’ petition.

KPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP)

2017 Kentucky Base Rate Case

In January 2018, the KPSC issued an order approving a non-unanimous settlement agreement with certain modifications resulting in an annual revenue increase of $12 million, effective January 2018, based on a 9.7% return on equity. The KPSC’s primary revenue requirement modification to the settlement agreement was a $14 million annual revenue reduction for the decrease in the corporate federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform. The KPSC approved: (a) the deferral of a total of $50 million of Rockport Plant UPA expenses for the years 2018 through 2022, with the manner and timing of recovery of the deferral to be addressed in KPCo’s next base rate case, (b) the recovery/return of 80% of certain annual PJM OATT expenses above/below the corresponding level recovered in base rates, (c) KPCo’s commitment to not file a base rate case for three years with rates effective no earlier than 2021 and (d) increased depreciation expense based upon updated Big Sandy Plant, Unit 1 depreciation rates using a 20-year depreciable life.

In February 2018, KPCo filed with the KPSC for rehearing of the January 2018 base case order and requested an additional $2.3 million of annual revenue increases related to: (a) the calculation of federal income tax expense, (b) recovery of purchased power costs associated with forced outages and (c) capital structure adjustments. Also in February 2018, an intervenor filed for rehearing recommending that the reduced corporate federal income tax rate be reflected in lower purchased power expense related to the Rockport UPA. In February 2018, the KPSC issued an order granting rehearing of these items, with an exception for the capital structure adjustments, which was denied by the KPSC.

OPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and OPCo)

Ohio Electric Security Plan Filings

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 DIR, effective June 2015 through May 2018. The proposal also involved a PPA rider that would include OPCo’s OVEC contractual entitlement (OVEC PPA) and would allow retail customers to receive a rate stabilizing charge or credit by hedging market-based prices with a cost-based PPA.

In 2015 and 2016, the PUCO issued orders in this proceeding. As part of the issued orders, the PUCO approved (a) the DIR with modified rate caps, (b) recovery of OVEC-related net margin incurred beginning June 2016, (c) potential additional contingent customer credits of up to $15 million to be included in the PPA rider over the final four years of the PPA rider and (d) the limitation that OPCo will not flow through any capacity performance penalties or bonuses through the PPA rider. 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 MWs and a wind energy project(s) of at least 500 MWs, with 100% of all output to be received by OPCo. AEP affiliates could own up to 50% of these solar and wind projects. In December 2016, in accordance with the stipulation agreement, OPCo filed a carbon reduction plan that focused on fuel diversification and carbon emission reductions. In April 2017, the PUCO rejected all pending rehearing requests. In June 2017, intervenors filed appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio stating that the PUCO’s approval of the OVEC PPA was unlawful and does not provide customers with rate stability.

In November 2016, OPCo refiled its amended ESP extension application and supporting testimony, consistent with the terms of the modified and approved stipulation agreement and based upon a 2016 PUCO order. The amended filing proposed to extend the ESP through May 2024 and included (a) an extension of the OVEC PPA rider, (b) a proposed 10.41% return on common equity on capital costs for certain riders, (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 Renewable Resource Rider.

In August 2017, OPCo and various intervenors filed a stipulation agreement with the PUCO. The stipulation extends the term of the ESP through May 2024 and includes: (a) an extension of the OVEC PPA rider, (b) a proposed 10% return on common equity on capital costs for certain riders, (c) the continuation of riders previously approved in the June 2015 - May 2018 ESP, (d) rate caps related to OPCo’s DIR ranging from $215 million to $290 million for the periods 2018 through 2021 and (e) the addition of various new riders, including a Smart City Rider and a Renewable Generation Rider. DIR rate caps will be reset in OPCo’s next distribution base rate case which must be filed by June 2020.

In October 2017, intervenor testimony opposing the stipulation agreement was filed recommending: (a) a return on common equity to not exceed 9.3% for riders earning a return on capital investments, (b) that OPCo should file a base distribution case concurrent with the conclusion of the current ESP in May 2018 and (c) denial of certain new riders proposed in OPCo’s ESP extension. The stipulation was reviewed by the PUCO at a hearing in November 2017.

In April 2018, the PUCO issued an order approving the stipulation agreement, with no significant changes.

2016 SEET Filing

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 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.

In December 2016, OPCo recorded a 2016 SEET provision of $58 million based upon projected earnings data for companies in the comparable utilities risk group. In determining OPCo’s return on equity in relation to the comparable utilities risk group, management excluded the following items resolved in OPCo’s Global Settlement that was filed at the PUCO in December 2016 and subsequently approved in February 2017: (a) gain on the deferral of RSR costs, (b) refunds to customers related to the SEET remands and (c) refunds to customers related to fuel adjustment clause proceedings.

In May 2017, OPCo submitted its 2016 SEET filing with the PUCO in which management indicated that OPCo did not have significantly excessive earnings in 2016 based upon actual earnings data for the comparable utilities risk group.

In January 2018, PUCO staff filed testimony that OPCo did not have significantly excessive earnings. Also in January 2018, an intervenor filed testimony recommending a $53 million refund to customers. In February 2018, OPCo and PUCO staff filed a stipulation agreement in which both parties agreed that OPCo did not have significantly excessive earnings in 2016.

A 2016 SEET hearing was held in April 2018 and management expects to receive an order in the second half of 2018. While management believes that OPCo’s adjusted 2016 earnings were not excessive, management did not adjust OPCo’s 2016 SEET provision due to risks that the PUCO could rule against OPCo’s proposed SEET adjustments, including treatment of the Global Settlement issues described above, adjust the comparable risk group or adopt a different 2016 SEET threshold. If the PUCO orders a refund of 2016 OPCo earnings, it could negatively affect future SEET filings, 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.

Upon rehearing in 2014, the PUCT reversed its initial ruling and determined that AFUDC was excluded from the Turk Plant’s Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap. As a result, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of previously recorded regulatory disallowances in 2013. The resulting annual base rate increase was approximately $52 million. In June 2017, the Texas District Court upheld the PUCT’s 2014 order. In July 2017, intervenors filed appeals with the Texas Third Court of Appeals. In April 2018, oral arguments were heard by the Texas Third Court of Appeals.

If certain parts of the PUCT order are overturned and 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.

2016 Texas Base Rate Case

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

As a result of the final order, in 2017 SWEPCo (a) recorded an impairment charge of $19 million, which includes $7 million associated with the lack of return on Welsh Plant, Unit 2 and $12 million related to other disallowed plant investments, (b) recognized $32 million of additional revenues, for the period of May 2017 through December 2017, that will be surcharged to customers and (c) recognized an additional $7 million of expenses consisting primarily of depreciation expense and vegetation management expense, offset by the deferral of rate case expenses. SWEPCo implemented new rates in February 2018 billings. The $32 million of additional 2017 revenues will be collected by the end of 2018. In March 2018, the PUCT clarified and corrected portions of the final order, without changing the overall decision or amounts of the rate change. This order is subject to appeal as early as the second quarter 2018. In April 2018, SWEPCo made an income tax rate refund tariff filing which includes an annual revenue reduction of approximately $18 million to reflect the difference between rates collected under the final order and the rates that would be collected under Tax Reform. The filing did not address the return of excess deferred income tax benefits to customers.

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. In February 2018, LPSC staff filed a report approving the increase as filed. This increase is subject to refund pending commission approval. If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2017 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In April 2017, the LPSC approved an uncontested stipulation agreement that SWEPCo filed for its formula rate plan for test year 2015. The filing included a net annual increase not to exceed $31 million, which was effective May 2017 and includes SWEPCo’s Louisiana jurisdictional share of Welsh Plant and Flint Creek Plant environmental controls which were placed in service in 2016. The net annual increase is subject to refund. In October 2017, SWEPCo filed testimony in Louisiana supporting the prudence of its environmental control investment for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 and Flint Creek power plants. These environmental costs are subject to prudence review. A hearing at the LPSC is scheduled for May 2018. If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2018 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In April 2018, SWEPCo filed its formula rate plan for test year 2017 with the LPSC. The filing included a net $28 million annual increase, which will be effective August 2018. The filing included a reduction in the federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform. The return of excess deferred income tax benefits to customers will be addressed in a supplemental filing and will reduce the $28 million annual increase. The increase includes SWEPCo’s jurisdictional share of Welsh Plant and Flint Creek Plant environmental controls, whose prudence review hearing is scheduled for May 2018. 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 total approximately $850 million, excluding AFUDC. As of March 31, 2018, SWEPCo had incurred costs of $399 million, including AFUDC, related to these projects. Management continues to evaluate the impact of environmental rules and related project cost estimates. As of March 31, 2018, the total net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $625 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.

In 2016, as approved by the APSC, SWEPCo began recovering $79 million related to the Arkansas jurisdictional share of these environmental costs, subject to prudence review in the next Arkansas filed base rate proceeding. In April 2017, the LPSC approved recovery of $131 million in investments related to its Louisiana jurisdictional share of environmental controls installed at Welsh Plant, effective May 2017. SWEPCo’s approved Louisiana jurisdictional share of Welsh Plant deferrals: (a) are $11 million, excluding $6 million of unrecognized equity as of March 31, 2018, (b) is subject to review by the LPSC, and (c) includes a WACC return on environmental investments and the related depreciation expense and taxes. In January 2018, SWEPCo received written approval from the PUCT to recover its project costs from retail customers in its 2016 Texas base rate case and is recovering these costs from wholesale customers through SWEPCo’s FERC-approved agreements. See “2016 Texas Base Rate Case” and “2017 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing” disclosures above.

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

FERC Rate Matters

PJM Transmission Rates (Applies to AEP, AEPTCo, APCo, I&M and OPCo)

In June 2016, PJM transmission owners, including AEP’s transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM, and various state commissions filed a settlement agreement at the FERC to resolve outstanding issues related to cost responsibility for charges to transmission customers for certain transmission facilities that operate at or above 500 kV. In July 2016, certain parties filed comments at the FERC contesting the settlement agreement. Upon final FERC approval, PJM would implement a transmission enhancement charge adjustment through the PJM OATT, billable through 2025. Management expects that any refunds received would generally be returned to retail customers through existing state rider mechanisms.

FERC Transmission Complaint - AEP’s PJM Participants (Applies to AEP, AEPTCo, APCo, I&M and OPCo)

In October 2016, seven parties filed a complaint at the FERC that alleged the base return on common equity used by AEP’s transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM in calculating formula transmission rates under the PJM OATT is excessive and should be reduced from 10.99% to 8.32%, effective upon the date of the complaint. In November 2017, a FERC order set the matter for hearing and settlement procedures. In March 2018, AEP’s transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM and six of the complainants filed a settlement agreement with the FERC (the seventh complainant abstained). If approved by the FERC the settlement agreement (a) establishes a base ROE for AEP’s transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM of 9.85% (10.35% inclusive of the RTO incentive adder of 0.5%), effective January 1, 2018, (b) requires AEP’s transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM to provide a one-time refund of $50 million, attributable from the date of the complaint through December 31, 2017, to be credited to customer bills in the second quarter of 2018 and (c) increases the cap on the equity portion of the capital structure to 55% from 50%. As part of the settlement agreement, AEP’s transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM also filed updated transmission formula rates incorporating the reduction in the corporate federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform, effective January 1, 2018 and providing for the amortization of the portion of the excess accumulated deferred income taxes that are not subject to the normalization method of accounting, ratably over a ten year period through credits to the federal income tax expense component of the revenue requirement. In April 2018, an ALJ accepted the interim settlement rates, pending the FERC’s consideration of the settlement, and the rates are subject to refund or surcharge, with interest.

In April 2018, certain intervenors filed comments at the FERC recommending a base ROE of 8.48% and a one-time refund of $184 million. In addition, the FERC trial staff filed comments recommending a base ROE of 8.41% and one-time refund of $175 million. Also in April 2018, another intervenor recommended the refund be calculated in accordance with the base ROE that will ultimately be approved by the FERC. Management intends to file reply comments providing further support for the 9.85% base ROE agreed to in the settlement agreement.

Management believes the $50 million refund in the settlement agreement is the best estimate of the probable liability. If the FERC orders revenue reductions in excess of the terms of the settlement agreement, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. A decision from the FERC is pending.

Modifications to AEP’s PJM Transmission Rates (Applies to AEP, AEPTCo, APCo, I&M and OPCo)

In November 2016, AEP’s transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM filed an application at the FERC to modify the PJM OATT formula transmission rate calculation, including an adjustment to recover a tax-related regulatory asset and a shift from historical to projected expenses. In March 2017, the FERC accepted the proposed modifications effective January 1, 2017, subject to refund, and set this matter for hearing and settlement procedures. The modified PJM OATT formula rates are based on projected calendar year financial activity and projected plant balances. In December 2017, AEP’s transmission owning subsidiaries within PJM filed an uncontested settlement agreement with the FERC resolving all outstanding issues. In April 2018, the FERC approved the uncontested settlement agreement and rates were implemented effective January 1, 2018.

FERC Transmission Complaint - AEP’s SPP Participants (Applies to AEP, AEPTCo, PSO and SWEPCo)

In June 2017, several parties filed a complaint at the FERC that states the base return on common equity used by AEP’s transmission owning subsidiaries within SPP in calculating formula transmission rates under the SPP OATT is excessive and should be reduced from 10.7% to 8.36%, effective upon the date of the complaint. In November 2017, a FERC order set the matter for hearing and settlement procedures. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of the complaint. If the FERC orders revenue reductions as a result of the complaint, including refunds from the date of the complaint filing, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Modifications to AEP’s SPP Transmission Rates (Applies to AEP, AEPTCo, PSO and SWEPCo)

In October 2017, AEP’s transmission owning subsidiaries within SPP filed an application at the FERC to modify the SPP OATT formula transmission rate calculation, including an adjustment to recover a tax-related regulatory asset and a shift from historical to projected expenses. The modified SPP OATT formula rates are based on projected 2018 calendar year financial activity and projected plant balances. In December 2017, the FERC accepted the proposed modifications effective January 1, 2018, subject to refund, and set this matter for hearing and settlement procedures. If the FERC determines that any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

FERC SWEPCo Power Supply Agreements Complaint - East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ETEC) and Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NTEC)

In September 2017, ETEC and NTEC filed a complaint at the FERC that states the base return on common equity used by SWEPCo in calculating their power supply formula rates is excessive and should be reduced from 11.1% to 8.41%, effective upon the date of the complaint. In November 2017, a FERC order set the matter for hearing and settlement procedures. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of the complaint. If the FERC orders revenue reductions as a result of the complaint, including refunds from the date of the complaint filing, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.