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 2020 Annual Report should be read in conjunction with this report.

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 six uncommitted facilities totaling $425 million. The Registrants’ maximum future payments for letters of credit issued under the uncommitted facilities as of June 30, 2021 were as follows:

In 2019, AEP acquired Sempra Renewables LLC. The transaction resulted in the acquisition of a 50% ownership interest in five non-consolidated joint ventures and the acquisition of two tax equity partnerships. Parent has issued guarantees over the performance of the joint ventures. If a joint venture were to default on payments or performance, Parent would be required to make payments on behalf of the joint venture. As of June 30, 2021, the

maximum potential amount of future payments associated with these guarantees was $148 million, with the last guarantee expiring in December 2037. The non-contingent liability recorded associated with these guarantees was $29 million, with an additional $1 million expected credit loss liability for the contingent portion of the guarantees. Management considered historical losses, economic conditions and reasonable and supportable forecasts in the calculation of the expected credit loss. As the joint ventures generate cash flows through PPAs, the measurement of the contingent portion of the guarantee liability is based upon assessments of the credit quality and default probabilities of the respective PPA counterparties.

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 June 30, 2021, 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.

The Registrants lease certain equipment under master lease agreements. Under the lease agreements, the lessor is guaranteed a residual value up to a stated percentage of the equipment cost at the end of the lease term. If the actual fair value of the leased equipment is below the guaranteed residual value at the end of the lease term, the Registrants are committed to pay the difference between the actual fair value and the residual value guarantee. Historically, at the end of the lease term the fair value has been in excess of the amount guaranteed. As of June 30, 2021, the maximum potential loss by the Registrants for these lease agreements assuming the fair value of the equipment is zero at the end of the lease term was as follows:

AEGCo and I&M entered into a sale-and-leaseback transaction in 1989 with Wilmington Trust Company (Owner Trustee), an unrelated, unconsolidated trustee for Rockport Plant, Unit 2 (the Plant). The Owner Trustee was capitalized with equity from six owner participants with no relationship to AEP or any of its subsidiaries and debt from a syndicate of banks and securities in a private placement to certain institutional investors.

The Owner Trustee owns the Plant and leases equal portions to AEGCo and I&M. The lease is accounted for as an operating lease. The lease term is for 33 years and at the end of the lease term, AEGCo and I&M have the option to renew the lease at a rate that approximates fair value. In November 2020, management announced that AEP will not renew the lease when it expires in 2022. AEP, AEGCo and I&M have no ownership interest in the Owner

In 2015, AEP sold its commercial barge transportation subsidiary, AEPRO, to a nonaffiliated party. Certain boat and barge leases acquired by the nonaffiliated party are subject to an AEP guarantee in favor of the respective lessors, ensuring future payments under such leases with maturities up to 2027. As of June 30, 2021, the maximum potential amount of future payments required under the guaranteed leases was $45 million. Under the terms of certain of the arrangements, upon the lessors exercising their rights after an event of default by the nonaffiliated party, AEP is entitled to enter into new lease arrangements as a lessee that would have substantially the same terms as the existing leases. Alternatively, for the arrangements with one of the lessors, upon an event of default by the nonaffiliated party and the lessor exercising its rights, payment to the lessor would allow AEP to step into the lessor’s rights as well as obtaining title to the assets. Under either situation, AEP would have the ability to utilize the assets in the normal course of barging operations. AEP would also have the right to sell the acquired assets for which it obtained title. As of June 30, 2021, AEP’s boat and barge lease guarantee liability was $3 million, of which $1 million was recorded in Other Current Liabilities and $2 million was recorded in Deferred Credits and Other Noncurrent Liabilities on AEP’s balance sheets.

In February 2020, the nonaffiliated party filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The party entered into a restructuring support agreement and has announced it expected to continue their operations as normal. In March 2020, the bankruptcy court approved the party’s recapitalization plan. In April 2020, the nonaffiliated party emerged from bankruptcy. Management has determined that it is reasonably possible that enforcement of AEP’s liability for future payments under these leases will be exercised within the next twelve months. In such an event, if AEP is unable to sell or incorporate any of the acquired assets into its fleet operations, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

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.

I&M owns and operates the 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.

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. The consent decree was modified based on an agreement among the parties in July 2019. The district court’s stay of the lease litigation expired in August 2020. Upon expiration of the stay, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the consent decree violates the facility lease and the participation agreement and requesting that the district court enter a judgment for the plaintiffs on their breach of contract claim. AEP’s memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was filed in October 2020. At the parties’ request, the district court stayed the case until April 19, 2021 to provide the parties an opportunity to resolve the case.

On April 20, 2021, I&M and AEGCo reached an agreement to acquire 100% of the interests in Rockport Plant, Unit 2 for $115.5 million from certain financial institutions that own the unit through trusts established by Wilmington Trust, the nonaffiliated owner trustee of the ownership interests in the unit, with closing to occur as of the end of the Rockport Plant, Unit 2 lease in December 2022. As a result, in May 2021, at the parties request, the district court entered a stipulation and order dismissing the case without prejudice to plaintiffs asserting their claims in a re-filed action or a new action. The agreement is subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals, and as of the closing will result in a final settlement of, and release of claims in, the lease litigation. Management believes its financial statements appropriately reflect the expected resolution of the pending litigation.

The American Electric Power System Retirement Plan (the Plan) has received a letter written on behalf of four participants (the Claimants) making a claim for additional plan benefits and purporting to advance such claims on behalf of a class. When the Plan’s benefit formula was changed in the year 2000, AEP provided a special provision for employees hired before January 1, 2001, allowing them to continue benefit accruals under the then benefit formula for a full 10 years alongside of the new cash balance benefit formula then being implemented. Employees who were hired on or after January 1, 2001 accrued benefits only under the new cash balance benefit formula. The Claimants have asserted claims that: (a) the Plan violates the requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) intended to preclude back-loading the accrual of benefits to the end of a participant’s career, (b) the Plan violates the age discrimination prohibitions of ERISA and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and (c) the company failed to provide required notice regarding the changes to the Plan. AEP has responded to the Claimants providing a reasoned explanation for why each of their claims have been denied. The denial of those claims was appealed to the AEP System Retirement Plan Appeal Committee and the Committee upheld the denial of claims. Management will continue to defend against the claims. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring.

In 2019, Ohio adopted and implemented HB 6 which benefits OPCo by authorizing rate recovery for certain costs including renewable energy contracts and OVEC’s coal-fired generating units. OPCo engaged in lobbying efforts and provided testimony during the legislative process in connection with HB 6. In July 2020, an investigation led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office resulted in a federal grand jury indictment of an Ohio legislator and associates in connection with an alleged racketeering conspiracy involving the adoption of HB 6. After AEP learned of the criminal allegations against the Ohio legislator and others relating to HB 6, the Company, with assistance from outside advisors, conducted a review of the circumstances surrounding the passage of the bill. We do not believe that AEP was involved in any wrongful conduct in connection with the passage of HB 6.

In August 2020, an AEP shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against AEP and certain of its officers for alleged violations of securities laws. The amended complaint alleges misrepresentations or omissions by AEP regarding: (a) its alleged participation in or connection to public corruption with respect to the passage of HB 6 and (b) its regulatory, legislative, political contribution, 501(c)(4) organization contribution and lobbying activities in Ohio. The complaint seeks monetary damages, among other forms of relief. On May 10, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the securities litigation for failure to state a claim, and under the Court’s briefing schedule the motion will be fully briefed by July 26, 2021. The company will continue to defend against the claims. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring.

In January 2021, an AEP shareholder filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purporting to assert claims on behalf of AEP against certain AEP officers and directors. In February 2021, a second AEP shareholder filed a similar derivative action in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio. In April 2021, a third AEP shareholder filed a similar derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and a fourth AEP shareholder filed a similar derivative action in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, Nassau County. These derivative complaints allege the officers and directors made misrepresentations and omissions similar to those alleged in the putative securities class action lawsuit filed against AEP. The derivative complaints together assert claims for: (a) breach of fiduciary duty, (b) waste of corporate assets, (c) unjust enrichment, (d) breach of duty for insider trading and (e) contribution for violations of sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and seek monetary damages and changes to AEP’s corporate governance and internal policies among other forms of relief. The first three derivative actions have been stayed pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss the securities litigation. The fourth has been stayed until such time as the court determines to lift the stay. The company will continue to defend against the claims. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring.

On March 1, 2021, AEP received a litigation demand letter from counsel representing a purported AEP shareholder. The litigation demand letter is directed to the Board of Directors of AEP and contains factual allegations involving HB 6 that are generally consistent with those in the derivative litigation filed in state and federal court. The letter

demands, among other things, that the AEP Board undertake an independent investigation into alleged legal violations by directors and officers, and that, following such investigation, the Company commence a civil action for breaches of fiduciary duty and related claims and take appropriate disciplinary action against those individuals who allegedly harmed the company. The shareholder that sent the letter has agreed that AEP and the AEP Board may defer consideration of the litigation demand until the resolution of the motion to dismiss the securities litigation. The AEP Board will act in response to the letter as appropriate. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring.

In May 2021, AEP received a subpoena from the SEC’s Division of Enforcement seeking various documents, including documents relating to the benefits to AEP from the passage of HB 6 and documents relating to AEP’s financial processes and controls. AEP is cooperating fully with the SEC’s subpoena. Although we cannot predict the outcome of the SEC’s investigation, we do not believe the results of this inquiry will have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.