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 2022 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 $450 million. The Registrants’ maximum future payments for letters of credit issued under the uncommitted facilities as of September 30, 2023 were as follows:

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 September 30, 2023, 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 September 30, 2023, 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:

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 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 U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against AEP and certain of its officers for alleged violations of securities laws. 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 U.S. 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 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 substantive and forum-based motions to dismiss on April 29, 2022. On September 13, 2022, the New York state

court granted the forum-based motion to dismiss with prejudice and the plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the New York appellate court. On January 20, 2023, the New York plaintiff filed a motion to intervene in the pending Ohio federal court action and withdrew his appeal in New York. 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 the amended complaint and subsequently filed a brief in opposition to the New York plaintiffs’ motion to intervene in the consolidated action in Ohio. On March 20, 2023, the federal district court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice and denying the New York plaintiffs’ motion to intervene. On April 20, 2023, one of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit of the Ohio federal district court order dismissing the consolidated action and denying the intervention. On June 15, 2022, the Ohio state court entered an order continuing the stays of that case until the final 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 was directed to the Board of Directors of AEP (AEP Board) and contained factual allegations involving HB 6 that were generally consistent with those in the derivative litigation filed in state and federal court. The shareholder that sent the letter has since withdrawn the litigation demand, which is now terminated and of no further effect. In April 2023, AEP received a litigation demand from counsel representing the purported AEP shareholder who filed the dismissed derivative action in New York state court and unsuccessfully tried to intervene in the consolidated derivative actions in Ohio federal court. The litigation demand letter is directed to the AEP Board 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 certain current and former directors and officers, and that AEP commence a civil action for breaches of fiduciary duty and related claims against any individuals who allegedly harmed AEP. 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 passage of HB 6 and documents relating to AEP’s policies and financial processes and controls. In August 2022, AEP received a second subpoena from the SEC seeking various additional documents relating to its ongoing investigation. AEP is cooperating fully with the SEC’s investigation, which has included taking testimony from certain individuals and inquiries regarding Empowering Ohio’s Economy, Inc., which is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, and related disclosures. AEP and the SEC are engaged in discussions about a possible resolution of the SEC’s investigation and potential claims under the securities laws, the outcome of which cannot be predicted and could subject AEP to civil penalties and other remedial measures. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring, but management does not believe the results of this investigation or a possible resolution thereof will have a material impact on results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

In November 2022, the Federal EPA issued a final decision denying Gavin Power LLC’s requested extension to allow a CCR surface impoundment at the Gavin Power Station to continue to receive CCR and non-CCR waste streams after April 11, 2021 until May 4, 2023 (the Gavin Denial). As part of the Gavin Denial, the Federal EPA made several determinations related to the CCR Rule (see “Environmental Issues - CCR Rule” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information), including a determination that the closure of the 300 acre unlined fly ash reservoir (FAR) is noncompliant with the CCR Rule in multiple respects. The Gavin Power Station was formerly owned and operated by AEP and was sold to Gavin Power LLC and Lightstone Generation LLC in 2017. Pursuant to the PSA, AEP maintained responsibility to complete closure of the FAR in accordance with the closure plan approved by the Ohio EPA which was completed in July 2021. The PSA contains indemnification provisions, pursuant to which the owners of the Gavin Power Station have notified AEP they believe they are entitled to indemnification for any damages that may result from these claims, including any future enforcement or litigation resulting from the Federal EPA’s determinations of noncompliance with various aspects of the CCR Rule as part of the Gavin Denial. The owners of the Gavin Power Station have also sought indemnification for landowner claims for property damage

allegedly caused by modifications to the FAR. Management does not believe that the owners of the Gavin Power Station have any valid claim for indemnity or otherwise against AEP under the PSA. In addition, Gavin Power LLC, several AEP subsidiaries, and other parties have filed Petitions for Review of the Gavin Denial with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring.