Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2019

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES

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

The Registrants are subject to certain claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business.  In addition, the Registrants’ business activities are subject to extensive governmental regulation related to public health and the environment.  The ultimate outcome of such pending or potential litigation against the Registrants cannot be predicted.  Management accrues contingent liabilities only when management concludes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. When management determines that it is not probable, but rather reasonably possible that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements, management discloses such contingencies and the possible loss or range of loss if such estimate can be made. Any estimated range is based on currently available information and involves elements of judgment and significant uncertainties. Any estimated range of possible loss may not represent the maximum possible loss exposure. Circumstances change over time and actual results may vary significantly from estimates.

For current proceedings not specifically discussed below, management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, arising from such proceedings would have a material effect on the financial statements. The Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies note within the 2018 Annual Report should be read in conjunction with this report.

GUARANTEES

Liabilities for guarantees are recorded in accordance with the accounting guidance for “Guarantees.”  There is no collateral held in relation to any guarantees. In the event any guarantee is drawn, there is no recourse to third-parties unless specified below.

Letters of Credit (Applies to AEP, AEP Texas and OPCo)

Standby letters of credit are entered into with third-parties.  These letters of credit are issued in the ordinary course of business and cover items such as natural gas and electricity risk management contracts, construction contracts, insurance programs, security deposits and debt service reserves.

AEP has a $4 billion revolving credit facility due in June 2022, under which up to $1.2 billion may be issued as letters of credit on behalf of subsidiaries. As of March 31, 2019, no letters of credit were issued under the revolving credit facility.

An uncommitted facility gives the issuer of the facility the right to accept or decline each request made under the facility. AEP issues letters of credit on behalf of subsidiaries under four uncommitted facilities totaling $305 million. In April 2019, AEP executed two additional $50 million uncommitted letter of credit facilities. The Registrants’ maximum future payments for letters of credit issued under the uncommitted facilities as of March 31, 2019 were as follows:

Company	Amount		Maturity
	(in millions)
AEP	$	105.8	June 2019 to March 2020
AEP Texas	2.2		January 2020
OPCo	1.2		September 2019 to March 2020

AEP has $45 million of variable rate Pollution Control Bonds supported by $46 million of bilateral letters of credit maturing in July 2019.

Guarantees of Third-Party Obligations (Applies to AEP and SWEPCo)

As part of the process to receive a renewal of a Texas Railroad Commission permit for lignite mining, SWEPCo provides guarantees of mine reclamation of $140 million.  Since SWEPCo uses self-bonding, the guarantee commits SWEPCo to complete the reclamation, in the event, Sabine does not complete the work.  This guarantee ends upon depletion of reserves and completion of reclamation.  The reserves are estimated to deplete in 2036 with reclamation completed by 2046 at an estimated cost of $107 million.  Actual reclamation costs could vary due to inflation and scope changes to the mine reclamation.  As of March 31, 2019, SWEPCo has collected $76 million through a rider for reclamation costs, of which $82 million was recorded in Asset Retirement Obligations, offset by $6 million recorded in Deferred Charges and Other Noncurrent Assets on SWEPCo’s balance sheets.

Sabine charges all of its costs to its only customer, SWEPCo, which recovers these costs through its fuel clauses.

Guarantees of Equity Method Investees (Applies to AEP)

In December 2016, AEP issued a performance guarantee for a 50% owned joint venture which is accounted for as an equity method investment. If the joint venture were to default on payments or performance, AEP would be required to make payments on behalf of the joint venture. As of March 31, 2019, the maximum potential amount of future payments associated with this guarantee was $75 million, which expires in December 2019.

Indemnifications and Other Guarantees

Contracts

The Registrants enter into certain types of contracts which require indemnifications.  Typically these contracts include, but are not limited to, sale agreements, lease agreements, purchase agreements and financing agreements.  Generally, these agreements may include, but are not limited to, indemnifications around certain tax, contractual and environmental matters.  With respect to sale agreements, exposure generally does not exceed the sale price.  As of March 31, 2019, there were no material liabilities recorded for any indemnifications.

AEPSC conducts power purchase-and-sale activity on behalf of APCo, I&M, KPCo and WPCo, who are jointly and severally liable for activity conducted on their behalf.  AEPSC also conducts power purchase-and-sale activity on behalf of PSO and SWEPCo, who are jointly and severally liable for activity conducted on their behalf.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTINGENCIES (Applies to all Registrants except AEPTCo)

The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund) and State Remediation

By-products from the generation of electricity include materials such as ash, slag, sludge, low-level radioactive waste and SNF.  Coal combustion by-products, which constitute the overwhelming percentage of these materials, are typically treated and deposited in captive disposal facilities or are beneficially utilized.  In addition, the generation plants and transmission and distribution facilities have used asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls and other hazardous and non-hazardous materials.  The Registrants currently incur costs to dispose of these substances safely. For remediation processes not specifically discussed, management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, arising from such remediation processes would have a material effect on the financial statements.

NUCLEAR CONTINGENCIES (Applies to AEP and I&M)

I&M owns and operates the two-unit 2,278 MW Cook Plant under licenses granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  I&M has a significant future financial commitment to dispose of SNF and to safely decommission and decontaminate the plant.  The licenses to operate the two nuclear units at the Cook Plant expire in 2034 and 2037.  The operation of a nuclear facility also involves special risks, potential liabilities and specific regulatory and safety requirements.  By agreement, I&M is partially liable, together with all other electric utility companies that own nuclear generation units, for a nuclear power plant incident at any nuclear plant in the U.S.  Should a nuclear incident occur at any nuclear power plant in the U.S., the resultant liability could be substantial.

OPERATIONAL CONTINGENCIES

Rockport Plant Litigation (Applies to AEP and I&M)

In 2013, the Wilmington Trust Company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against AEGCo and I&M alleging that it would be unlawfully burdened by the terms of the modified NSR consent decree after the Rockport Plant, Unit 2 lease expiration in December 2022.  The terms of the consent decree allow the installation of environmental emission control equipment, repowering, refueling or retirement of the unit.  The plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring that the defendants breached the lease, must satisfy obligations related to installation of emission control equipment and indemnify the plaintiffs.  The New York court granted a motion to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

AEGCo and I&M sought and were granted dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio of certain of the plaintiffs’ claims, including claims for compensatory damages, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and indemnification of costs. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the surviving claims that AEGCo and I&M failed to exercise prudent utility practices with prejudice, and the court issued a final judgment. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion and judgment affirming the district court’s dismissal of the owners’ breach of good faith and fair dealing claim as duplicative of the breach of contract claims, reversing the district court’s dismissal of the breach of contract claims and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Thereafter, AEP filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the original NSR litigation, seeking to modify the consent decree. The district court granted the owners’ unopposed motion to stay the lease litigation to afford time for resolution of AEP’s motion to modify the consent decree. In September 2018, the district court granted AEP’s unopposed motion to stay further proceedings regarding the consent decree to facilitate settlement discussions among the parties to the consent decree. See “Proposed Modification of the NSR Litigation Consent Decree” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information.

Management will continue to defend against the claims. Given that the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims seeking compensatory relief as premature, and that plaintiffs have yet to present a methodology for determining or any analysis supporting any alleged damages, management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring.