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.

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 five uncommitted facilities totaling $400 million. The Registrants’ maximum future payments for letters of credit issued under the uncommitted facilities as of June 30, 2022 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, 2022, the maximum potential amount of future payments associated with these guarantees was $135 million, with the last guarantee expiring in December 2037. The non-contingent liability recorded associated with these guarantees was $27 million, with an additional $2 million expected credit loss liability for the contingent portion of the guarantees. In accordance with the accounting guidance for guarantees, the initial recognition of the non-contingent liabilities increased AEP’s carrying values of the respective equity method investees. 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, 2022, there were no material liabilities recorded for any indemnifications.

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, 2022, 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 trusts were 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 trusts own undivided interests in Rockport Plant, Unit 2 and leases equal portions to AEGCo and I&M. In April 2021, AEGCo and I&M executed an agreement to purchase 100% of the interests in the Rockport Plant, Unit 2 effective at the end of the lease term in December 2022. In December 2021, AEGCo and I&M satisfied the necessary regulatory approvals to complete the acquisition. Upon receipt of the regulatory approval, the addition of the lessee forward purchase obligation resulted in the modified lease changing classification from operating to finance for AEGCo and I&M. The future minimum lease payments as of June 30, 2022, inclusive of the purchase obligation, were as follows:

The lease modification also created variable interests in the trusts that own the undivided interests in Rockport Plant, Unit 2 for AEGCo and I&M. Neither AEGCo nor I&M are the primary beneficiaries of the trusts because AEGCo nor I&M has the power to direct the most significant activities of the trusts. AEP and I&M’s maximum exposure to loss associated with the trust is equal to the total future minimum lease payments, inclusive of the purchase obligation, as shown in the table above.

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, 2022, the maximum potential amount of future payments required under the guaranteed leases was $38 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, 2022, AEP’s boat and barge lease guarantee liability was $2 million, of which $1 million was recorded in Other Current Liabilities and $1 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 suit 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 sought a judgment declaring that the defendants breached the lease, must satisfy obligations related to installation of emission control equipment and indemnify the plaintiffs.

After the litigation proceeded at the district court and appellate court, in April 2021, I&M and AEGCo reached an agreement to acquire 100% of the interests in Rockport Plant, Unit 2 for $116 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. The agreement is subject to customary closing conditions and as of the closing will result in a final settlement of, and release of claims in, the lease litigation. 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 required regulatory approvals at the IURC and FERC have been obtained that would allow the closing to occur as of the end of the lease in December 2022. The IURC order approved a settlement agreement addressing the future use of Rockport Plant, Unit 2 as a capacity resource and associated adjustments to I&M’s Indiana retail rates, along with certain other matters. Management believes its financial statements appropriately reflect the resolution of the litigation.

Four participants in The American Electric Power System Retirement Plan (the Plan) filed a class action complaint in December 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against AEPSC and the Plan. 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 Plaintiffs assert a number of claims on behalf of themselves and the purported class, including 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) AEP failed to provide required notice regarding the changes to the Plan. Among other relief, the Complaint seeks reformation of the Plan to provide additional benefits and the recovery of plan benefits for former employees under such reformed plan. The Plaintiffs previously had submitted claims for additional plan benefits to AEP, which were denied. On February 15, 2022, AEPSC and the Plan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and briefing on the motion to dismiss has been completed. AEP 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, AEP, with assistance from outside advisors, conducted a review of the circumstances surrounding the passage of the bill. Management does 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 alleged 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 sought monetary damages, among other forms of relief. In December 2021, the District Court issued an opinion and order dismissing the securities litigation complaint with prejudice, determining that the complaint failed to plead any actionable misrepresentations or omissions. The plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling.

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 court has entered a scheduling order in the New York state court derivative action staying the case other than with respect to briefing the motion to dismiss. AEP filed its motion to dismiss on April 29, 2022 and briefing on the motion to dismiss has been completed. The two derivative actions pending in federal district court in Ohio have been consolidated and the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint. AEP filed a motion to dismiss on May 3, 2022 and briefing on the motion to dismiss has been completed. Discovery remains stayed pending the district court’s ruling

on the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff in the Ohio state court case advised that they no longer agreed to stay the proceedings, therefore, AEP filed a motion to continue the stays of proceedings on May 20, 2022 and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2022. On June 15, 2022 the Ohio state court entered an order continuing the stay of that case until the resolution of the consolidated derivative actions pending in Ohio federal district court. The defendants will continue to defend against the claims. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring.

In March 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, AEP 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 since withdrawn the litigation demand, which is now terminated and of no further effect.

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 the outcome of the SEC’s investigation cannot be predicted, management does not believe the results of this inquiry will have a material impact on financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.