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.

Regulated Generating Unit to be Retired by 2020 (Applies to AEP and PSO)

In September 2018, management announced that the Oklaunion Power Station is probable of abandonment and is to be retired by October 2020. The table below summarizes the plant investment and cost of removal, currently being recovered, for the generating unit as of September 30, 2018. See “2018 Oklahoma Base Rate Case” below for additional information.



Gross Investment		Accumulated Depreciation		Net Investment		Materials and Supplies		Cost of Removal Regulatory Liability		Expected Retirement Date	Remaining Recovery Period
(dollars in millions)
$	106.5	$	56.8	$	49.7	$	3.1	$	5.0	2020	28 years

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



	AEP
	September 30,		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	20.1		9.6
Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm-Related Costs (a)	151.7		128.0
Plant Retirement Costs - Asset Retirement Obligation Costs	39.7		39.7
Cook Plant Uprate Project	—		36.3
Cook Plant Turbine	—		15.9
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	18.8		42.2
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval (b)	$	280.6	$	322.0


(a)	As of September 30, 2018, AEP Texas has deferred $127 million related to Hurricane Harvey and is in the process of requesting securitization of the distribution portion of the regulatory asset.

(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. In 2017, the Virginia SCC staff requested that APCo prepare a depreciation study as of December 31, 2017 and submit that study to the Virginia SCC staff in 2018. In June 2018, APCo submitted the new depreciation study, based on December 31, 2017 property balances, to the Virginia SCC staff.



	AEP Texas
	September 30,		December 31,
	2018		2017
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)

Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Storm-Related Costs (a)	$	150.2	$	123.3
Rate Case Expense	0.2		0.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	150.4	$	123.4


(a)	As of September 30, 2018, AEP Texas has deferred $127 million related to Hurricane Harvey and is in the process of requesting securitization of the distribution portion of the regulatory asset.



	APCo
	September 30,		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
	September 30,		December 31,
	2018		2017
Noncurrent Regulatory Assets	(in millions)

Regulatory Assets Currently Not Earning a Return
Cook Plant Uprate Project	$	—	$	36.3
Deferred Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project Costs - Michigan	—		14.7
Cook Plant Turbine	—		15.9
Rockport Dry Sorbent Injection System - Indiana	—		10.4
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	3.4		2.0
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	3.4	$	79.3



	PSO
	September 30,		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	0.5		0.1
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	0.5	$	3.3



	SWEPCo
	September 30,		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
Asset Retirement Obligation - Arkansas, Louisiana	5.0		4.0
Rate Case Expense - Texas	4.6		4.3
Shipe Road Transmission Project - FERC	—		3.3
Other Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	3.3		2.5
Total Regulatory Assets Pending Final Regulatory Approval	$	63.7	$	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 impacts 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 September 30, 2018, AEP Texas’ cumulative revenues from interim base rate increases from 2008 through 2018, subject to review, are estimated to be $959 million. A base rate review could produce a refund to customers if AEP Texas incurs a disallowance of the transmission or distribution investment on which an interim increase was based. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that are reasonably possible of occurring. A revenue decrease, including a refund of interim transmission and distribution rates, could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

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

In 2018, the PUCT issued approvals to increase AEP Texas’ transmission rates by $22 million annually. The approvals included an increase in annual revenues to recover transmission capital additions of $46 million offset by a reduction in annual revenues of $24 million due to the reduction in the federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform. The approvals did not address the return of Excess ADIT benefits to customers.

In August 2018, the PUCT approved a Stipulation and Settlement agreement to amend AEP Texas’ Distribution Cost Recovery Factor to reduce annual distribution rates by approximately $24 million annually, beginning September 1, 2018. The settlement included an increase in annual revenues to recover 2017 distribution capital additions of $19 million offset by reductions in annual revenues of: (a) $21 million due to the reduction in the federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform, (b) $10 million due to Excess ADIT associated with certain depreciable property to be amortized using ARAM and (c) $12 million due to Excess ADIT that is not subject to rate normalization requirements to be refunded over 5 years.

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 September 30, 2018, the total balance of AEP Texas’ regulatory asset for deferred storm costs is approximately $150 million, inclusive of approximately $127 million of incremental storm expenses related to Hurricane Harvey. As of September 30, 2018, AEP Texas has recorded approximately $205 million of capital expenditures related to Hurricane Harvey. Also, as of September 30, 2018, AEP Texas has received $10 million in insurance proceeds, and has recorded a receivable for an additional $4 million that will be received in the fourth quarter of 2018, which were applied to the Hurricane Harvey related regulatory asset and property, plant and equipment balances. 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 is in the process of requesting securitization of the distribution portion of the regulatory asset. The standard process for securitization of storm cost recovery in Texas requires two filings with the PUCT. In August 2018, AEP Texas filed a Determination of System Restoration Costs with the PUCT for total estimated storm costs in the amount of $425 million, which includes estimated carrying costs. The estimated value of the total storm costs net of insurance proceeds, tax credits and Excess ADIT is $370 million. AEP Texas intends to request securitization for distribution related assets of $253 million while the remaining $117 million of transmission related assets will be recovered through interim transmission filings or an upcoming base rate case. The request for securitization is expected to occur by the first quarter of 2019.

In October 2018, intervenors filed testimony requesting a $24 million reduction in AEP Texas’ Determination of System Restoration Costs. Also in October 2018, the PUCT staff filed testimony requesting a $4 million reduction AEP Texas’ Determination of System Restoration Costs. Settlement negotiations are ongoing. If the ultimate costs of the incident are not recovered by insurance or through the regulatory process, it could have an adverse effect on future net income, cash flows and financial condition.

APCo and WPCo 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: (a) on a one-time basis, required APCo to exclude $10 million of incurred fuel expenses from the July 2018 over/under recovery calculation, (b) reduced APCo’s base rates by $50 million annually effective July 30, 2018, on an interim basis and subject to true-up, to reflect the reduction in the federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform, (c) will 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) will 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) will require APCo to seek 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 ending July 1, 2028 and (f) will require APCo to construct and/or acquire solar generation facilities in Virginia, as approved by the Virginia SCC, of at least 200 MW of aggregate capacity by July 1, 2028. Triennial reviews are subject to an earnings test which provides that 70% of any over earnings would be refunded or may be reinvested in approved energy distribution grid transformation projects and/or new utility-owned solar and wind generation facilities. The Virginia SCC’s triennial review of 2017-2019 APCo earnings could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Virginia Tax Reform

In October 2018, the Virginia SCC issued an order approving APCo’s request to refund $55 million of Excess ADIT that is not subject to rate normalization requirements to customers through a rider. The rider will be paid over twelve months effective November 1, 2018 and will offset APCo’s recent increase in interim fuel rates, subject to refund, that was filed with the Virginia SCC.

In October 2018, APCo submitted a filing with the Virginia SCC to resolve outstanding issues related to Tax Reform. The filing incorporated amounts already refunded to customers as disclosed in “Virginia Legislation Affecting Earnings Reviews” above and, if approved, will reduce APCo’s base rates by an additional $7 million annually. The combined reduction in APCo’s base rates due to Tax Reform will refund: (a) $39 million annually of excess federal income taxes collected since January 1, 2018 until new base rates are implemented, (b) $7 million annually of Excess ADIT associated with certain depreciable property using ARAM and (c) $11 million annually of Excess ADIT that is not subject to rate normalization requirements over 10 years. APCo anticipates a final order from the Virginia SCC in the first quarter of 2019 and expects to implement additional customer rate credits in a tax-related rider starting in April 2019. The Virginia SCC’s review of APCo’s October 2018 Tax Reform filing could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

2018 West Virginia Base Rate Case

In May 2018, APCo and WPCo filed a joint request with the WVPSC to increase their combined West Virginia base rates by $115 million ($98 million related to APCo) annually based on a 10.22% return on common equity. The proposed annual increase includes $32 million ($28 million related to APCo) due to increased annual depreciation rates and also reflects the impact of the reduction in the federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform. In October 2018, APCo and WPCo filed updated schedules supporting a $95 million ($80 million related to APCo) annual increase in West Virginia base rates primarily due to the impact of West Virginia Tax Reform discussed below.

In October 2018, WVPSC staff and intervenors filed testimony. WVPSC staff recommended a $2 million annual net revenue increase based on a 9.25% return on common equity while intervenors recommended a $14 million annual net revenue decrease based on an 8.75% return on common equity. The difference between APCo and WPCo’s requested annual base rate increase and the WVPSC staff and intervenors recommendations are primarily due to: (a) a reduction in the requested return on common equity, (b) the rejection of updates to the rate base calculation methodology, (c) the rejection of updates to rate base for certain known plant in service increases in 2018 and (d) a reduction in annual depreciation rates primarily related to continuing with a 2040 retirement date for Clinch River Plant rather than APCo’s proposed retirement date of 2025. A hearing at the WVPSC is scheduled for November 2018. If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

West Virginia Tax Reform

In August 2018, the WVPSC approved a settlement agreement between APCo, WPCo and various intervenors that addresses the reduction in the federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform. The agreement will provide refunds to customers, through a rider, of approximately $63 million ($51 million related to APCo) through June 2020. In addition, APCo and WPCo utilized $139 million ($125 million related to APCo) of current tax savings and Excess ADIT to offset regulatory asset balances related to carbon capture, storm damage, ENEC and vegetation management. The remaining balance of $87 million ($77 million related to APCo) of Excess ADIT that is not subject to rate normalization requirements will be addressed by the WVPSC at a later date.

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 September 30, 2018, AEP’s share of ETT’s cumulative revenues that are subject to review is estimated to be $849 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 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.

In June 2018, the PUCT approved ETT’s application to reduce its transmission rates by $28 million annually, beginning June 21, 2018, to reflect the reduction in the federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform. The filing did not address the return of Excess ADIT benefits to customers.

In September 2018, ETT filed a request with the PUCT to refund $11 million of excess federal income taxes collected in 2018 prior to the reduction in transmission rates that were implemented on June 21, 2018.

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 February 2018, I&M 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 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 ADIT, (c) a 9.95% return on equity, (d) longer recovery periods of regulatory assets, (e) lower depreciation expense primarily for meters, (f) an increase in the sharing of off-system sales margins with customers from 50% to 95% and (g) a refund of $4 million from July 2018 through December 2018 for the impact of Tax Reform for the period January 2018 through June 2018.

In May 2018, the IURC issued an order approving the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in its entirety.

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 included $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 intervenor’s proposal for up to 10% of I&M’s Michigan retail customers to choose an alternate supplier for generation and a proposed capacity rate based on PJM’s net cost of new entry value of $289/MW-day, as well as the 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. In October 2018, I&M filed a request with the MPSC seeking authority to defer costs related to customers choosing an alternate supplier starting in February 2019.

In April 2018, the MPSC issued an order that generally approved the ALJ proposal resulting in an annual revenue increase of $50 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.

In May 2018, I&M filed a Petition for Rehearing on the capacity rate issue. In June 2018, the MPSC denied I&M’s request.

Michigan Tax Reform

In August 2018, the MPSC approved I&M’s application to refund, through a rider, approximately $9 million annually for the impact of Tax Reform on I&M’s Michigan jurisdictional earnings effective September 1, 2018. In October 2018, I&M also made two filings with the MPSC recommending to: (a) refund $3 million over eight months for the impact of Tax Reform on Michigan jurisdictional earnings for the period April 26, 2018 through August 31, 2018, (b) refund approximately $68 million of Excess ADIT associated with certain depreciable property using ARAM and (c) refund approximately $37 million of Excess ADIT that is not subject to rate normalization requirements over 10 years. An order from the MPSC is expected by the end of the first quarter of 2019.

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. 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 and is expected to be placed in service in May 2020. The estimated cost of the SCR project is $274 million, excluding AFUDC, to be shared equally between I&M and AEGCo. 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.

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 of 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 an I&M Indiana rider.

In April 2018, a group of intervenors filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Rehearing of the March 2018 IURC order. In June 2018, the IURC denied the Petition for Reconsideration and Rehearing.

Management intends to request recovery of the Michigan jurisdictional share of the SCR project in a future base rate case. The AEGCo ownership share of the SCR project will be billable under the Rockport UPA to I&M and KPCo and will be subject to future regulatory approval for recovery.

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 April 2018, KPCo and the intervenor filed a settlement agreement with the KPSC in which KPCo withdrew its requested increase related to the recovery of purchased power costs associated with forced outages and the intervenor withdrew its claim regarding the impact of the reduced corporate federal income tax rates on purchased power costs related to the Rockport UPA.

In June 2018, the KPSC issued an order approving the settlement agreement including KPCo’s requested additional revenue increase of $765 thousand related to the calculation of federal income tax expense. This rate increase was effective June 28, 2018.

Kentucky Tax Reform

In June 2018, the KPSC issued an order approving a settlement agreement between KPCo and an intervenor that stipulates that KPCo will refund an estimated $82 million of Excess ADIT associated with certain depreciable property using ARAM and an estimated $93 million of Excess ADIT that is not subject to rate normalization requirements over 18 years. The refund was effective July 1, 2018.

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 revenue 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 April 2017, the PUCO rejected all pending rehearing requests related to the OVEC PPA. 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 June 2018, oral arguments were held before the Supreme Court of Ohio.

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.

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 April 2018, the PUCO issued an order approving the ESP extension stipulation agreement, with no significant changes. In May 2018, OPCo and various intervenors filed requests for rehearing with the PUCO. In June 2018, these requests for rehearing were approved to allow further consideration of the requests. In August 2018, the PUCO denied all requests for rehearing. In October 2018, an intervenor filed an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court challenging various approved riders.

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 first half of 2019. 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.

Ohio Tax Reform

In October 2018, the PUCO issued an order approving a September 2018 settlement agreement between OPCo and various intervenors that addresses the reduction in the federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform. The settlement will: (a) refund excess federal income tax of $20 million annually, through a rider, effective January 1, 2018 until new base rates are implemented, (b) refund an estimated $278 million of Excess ADIT associated with depreciable property through OPCo’s DIR, (c) utilize $48 million of Excess ADIT that is not subject to rate normalization to offset regulatory asset balances related to OPCo’s distribution decoupling program and (d) refund the remaining estimated $129 million of Excess ADIT that is not subject to rate normalization by December 31, 2024 through a rider.

PSO Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and PSO)

2018 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In October 2018, PSO filed a request with the OCC for an $88 million annual increase in Oklahoma retail rates based upon a 10.3% return on common equity. PSO also proposed to implement a performance based rate plan that combines a formula rate with a set of customer-focused performance incentive measures related to reliability, public safety, customer satisfaction and economic development. The proposed annual increase includes $13 million related to increased annual depreciation rates and $7 million related to increased storm expense amortization. The requested increase in annual depreciation rates includes the recovery of Oklaunion Power Station through 2028 (currently being recovered in rates through 2046). Management has announced plans to retire Oklaunion Power Station by October 2020. If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Oklahoma Tax Reform

In August 2018, the OCC issued an order that approved PSO’s compliance filing that addresses the reduction in the federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform. As a result of the order PSO will establish a rider to: (a) refund $3 million of excess federal income taxes collected from January 9, 2018 through February 28, 2018 by the end of 2018, (b) refund an estimated $353 million of Excess ADIT associated with certain depreciable property using ARAM and (c) refund an estimated $72 million of Excess ADIT that is not subject to rate normalization requirements over 10 years.

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 July 2018, the Texas Third Court of Appeals reversed the PUCT’s judgment affirming the prudence of the Turk Plant and remanded the issue back to the PUCT. In August 2018, SWEPCo filed a Motion for Reconsideration at the Court of Appeals. In October 2018, the Court of Appeals denied SWEPCo’s request. SWEPCo intends to file an appeal with the Texas Supreme Court in the fourth quarter of 2018.

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 in additional vegetation management expenses and (d) the rejection of SWEPCo’s proposed transmission cost recovery mechanism.

As a result of the final order, in 2017 SWEPCo: (a) recorded an impairment charge of $19 million, which included $7 million associated with the lack of return on Welsh Plant, Unit 2 and $12 million related to other disallowed plant investments, (b) recognized $32 million of additional revenues, for the period of May 2017 through December 2017, that 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 expense. 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. The order has been appealed by various intervenors.

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 ADIT benefits to customers. In June 2018, the ALJ issued an order approving interim rates that provided for a reduction of residential rates of $8 million. In September 2018, the ALJ issued an order approving interim rates for the remaining customers. The matter has been sent to the PUCT for final approval.

Texas Tax Reform

In October 2018, SWEPCo filed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with the PUCT to refund $10 million of excess federal income taxes collected, as a result of Tax Reform, from January 1, 2018 through June 14, 2018 for residential customers and January 1, 2018 through September 19, 2018 for all other customer classes. An interim order was issued by an ALJ and the refunds will be made to customers through a rider in the fourth quarter of 2018.

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. 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 by the LPSC. In May 2018, LPSC staff filed testimony that the environmental control investment for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 and Flint Creek power plants is prudent. In August 2018, the LPSC issued an order affirming prudence and approved the settlement agreement for the environmental control investment. In October 2018, the LPSC staff filed a report approving the $31 million increase as filed. The net annual 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.

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 was effective August 2018 and includes SWEPCo’s Louisiana jurisdictional share of Welsh Plant and Flint Creek Plant environmental controls. The filing also included a reduction in the federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform but did not address the return of Excess ADIT benefits to customers.

In July 2018, SWEPCo made a supplemental filing to its formula rate plan with the LPSC to reduce the requested annual increase to $18 million. The difference between SWEPCo’s requested $28 million annual increase and the $18 million annual increase in the supplemental filing is primarily the result of the return of Excess ADIT benefits to customers.

In October 2018, the LPSC staff issued a recommendation that SWEPCo refund $11 million of excess federal income taxes collected, as a result of Tax Reform, from January 1, 2018 through July 31, 2018. A decision by the LPSC is expected in the fourth quarter of 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 $550 million, excluding AFUDC. As of September 30, 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 September 30, 2018, the total net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $621 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 $10 million, excluding $6 million of unrecognized equity as of September 30, 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. See “2017 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing” and “2018 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.

Arkansas Tax Reform

In September 2018, the APSC issued an order that approved SWEPCo’s application to implement a rider for SWEPCo’s Arkansas jurisdiction to address the reduction in the federal income tax rate due to Tax Reform. The rider was implemented in the first billing cycle of October 2018 and will: (a) refund $7 million over 15 months of excess federal income taxes collected from January 1, 2018 through September 30, 2018, (b) refund an ongoing estimated $655 thousand monthly from October 1, 2018 until new base rates go into effect as a result of a subsequent APSC order, (c) refund an estimated $66 million of Excess ADIT associated with certain depreciable property using ARAM and (d) refund an estimated $11 million of Excess ADIT that is not subject to rate normalization requirements over 15 months.

FERC Rate Matters

PJM Transmission Rates (Applies to AEP, 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. In May 2018, the FERC approved the contested settlement agreement. PJM implemented a transmission enhancement charge adjustment through the PJM OATT, which will be billable through 2025. Management expects that any refunds received would generally be returned to retail customers through existing state rider mechanisms and has recorded $134 million to Customer Accounts Receivable and $75 million to Deferred Charges and Other Noncurrent Assets, with offsets to Regulatory Liabilities and Deferred Investment Tax Credits as of September 30, 2018.

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, which was 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 ADIT that is 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, which included the $50 million one-time refund that occurred in the second quarter of 2018. These interim 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. The FERC trial staff filed comments recommending a base ROE of 8.41% and one-time refund of $175 million. Another intervenor recommended the refund be calculated in accordance with the base ROE that will ultimately be approved by the FERC. In May 2018, management filed reply comments providing further support for the 9.85% base ROE agreed to in the settlement agreement.

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 through September 5, 2018. In November 2017, a FERC order set the matter for hearing and settlement procedures. The parties were unable to settle and the proceeding is currently in the hearing phase.

In September 2018, the same parties filed another 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 8.71%, effective upon the date of the second complaint.

Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of these complaints. If the FERC orders revenue reductions as a result of these complaints, including refunds from the date of the complaint filings, 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 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) (Applies to AEP and SWEPCo)

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 its 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.

In May 2018, SWEPCo filed a settlement agreement with ETEC and NTEC at the FERC that resolves the issues of the complaint. If approved by the FERC, the settlement agreement: (a) reduces the base return on common equity from 11.1% to 10.1% effective September 1, 2017, (b) requires SWEPCo to provide a one-time billing credit of $287 thousand to reflect the decrease in return on common equity from September 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 and (c) implements the lower return on common equity on contracts starting January 1, 2018. In July 2018, the FERC issued an order approving the settlement.