This report made by the Registrants contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Many forward-looking statements appear in “Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of the 2015 Annual Report, but there are others throughout this document which may be identified by words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “project,” “continue” and similar expressions, and include statements reflecting future results or guidance and statements of outlook.  These matters are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected.  Forward-looking statements in this document are presented as of the date of this document.  Except to the extent required by applicable law, management undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement.  Among the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements are:

Investors should note that the Registrants announce material financial information in SEC filings, press releases and public conference calls. Based on guidance from the SEC, the Registrants may use the Investors section of AEP’s website (www.aep.com) to communicate with investors about the Registrants. It is possible that the financial and other information posted there could be deemed to be material information. The information on AEP’s website is not part of this report.

AEP’s weather-normalized retail sales volumes for the firstthird quarter of 2016 decreased by 0.1%0.5% from the firstthird quarter of 2015. AEP’s firstthird quarter 2016 industrial sales increased 0.9%decreased 2.6% compared to the firstthird quarter of 2015 primarily due to increaseddecreased sales to customers in oil and gas related sectors.the manufacturing sector. Weather-normalized residential sales increased by 1.2% and commercial sales decreased 1.6% and increased 0.7%by 0.5% in the firstthird quarter of 2016, respectively, from the firstthird quarter of 2015.

In December 2015,March 2016, a contested stipulation agreement related to the PPA rider application was filed withmodified and approved by the PUCO. The approved PPA rider is effective April 2016 through May 2024, subject to audit and review by the PUCO. The stipulation agreement, provided for a 10.38% return on common equity, for AGR, with the PPA rider term extending through May 2024. The stipulation agreementas approved, included (a) an affiliateAffiliate PPA between OPCo and AGR to be included in the PPA rider, (b) OPCo’s OVEC contractual entitlementPPA to be included in the PPA rider, (c) potential additional contingent customer credits of up to $100 million to be included in the PPA rider over the final four years of the PPA rider and (d) annual compliance reviews before the PUCO, (e) an agreement to retire, refuellimitation that OPCo will not flow through any capacity performance penalties or repower to 100% natural gas, Conesville Plant, Units 5 and 6 and Cardinal Plant, Unit 1 by 2029 and 2030, respectively, and (f) a commitment by OPCo to submit an amended ESP filing by April 30, 2016 which would extend all ESP ridersbonuses through May 2024.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 MW and a wind energy project(s) of at least 500 MW, with 100% of all output to be received by OPCo. AEP affiliates could own up to 50% of these solar and wind projects. OPCo agreed to file a carbon reduction plan with the PUCO by December 2016 that will focus on fuel diversification and carbon emission reductions.

In March 2016, the PUCO modified and approved the stipulation agreement. The PPA is effective April 2016 through May 2024, with quarterly PPA rider reconciliations to actual PPA costs compared to PJM market revenues, subject to audit and review by the PUCO. PUCO modifications to the stipulation agreement included (a) a temporary customer-specific rate impact cap of 5% through May 2018, (b) a directive that OPCo will not seek recovery from customers for any costs associated with the retirement, refueling, co-firing or repowering of PPA units, (c) the limitation that OPCo will not flow through any capacity performance penalties or bonuses through the PPA rider, (d) the right for the PUCO to exclude costs associated with a forced outage lasting longer than 90 days, (e) the limitation that OPCo will not flow through any net costs or revenues associated with AGR’s obligations or entitlements related to Cardinal Plant, Units 2 and 3 and (f) the right for the PUCO to re-evaluate or modify the PPA rider if there is a change to PJM’s tariffs or rules that prohibits the PPA units from being bid into PJM auctions.

In April 2016, the FERC issued an order granting thea January 2016 complaint filed against AGR and OPCo.  The FERC order rescinded the waivers of the FERC’s affiliate rules as to the affiliate PPA between AGR and OPCo.  As a result, AGR and OPCo are required to submitcannot implement the affiliate PPA towithout the FERC for review, in accordance with FERC’s rules governing affiliate transactions.  The affiliate PPA isAs a result of the April 2016 FERC order, management does not effective until the FERC review is completed andintend to pursue the affiliate PPA.

In May 2016, OPCo filed an application for rehearing with the PUCO related to certain aspects of the March 2016 PUCO order. The application included a proposed OVEC-only PPA is approved.  Management is evaluatingRider that included an option for the rider to be bypassable. The proposed OVEC-only PPA Rider included (a) the elimination of the PUCO-imposed customer-specific rate impact cap of 5% through May 2018, (b) modifications to proportionately decrease the amount of the potential customer credits and (c) the inclusion of PJM capacity performance penalties within the PPA rider. Also in May 2016, intervenors filed applications for rehearing with the PUCO opposing the modified and approved stipulation agreement.

OPCo has the option to exercise its alternativesright to withdraw from the PPA stipulation if the PUCO does not accept the requested modifications.

Consistent with the terms of the modified and approved stipulation agreement, in responseMay 2016, OPCo filed an amended ESP that proposed to this order.extend the ESP through May 2024. The amended ESP included (a) an extension of the PPA rider, which includes only OPCo’s entitlements to its ownership percentage of OVEC, (b) a proposed 10.41% 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) proposed increases in rate caps related to OPCo’s Distribution Investment Rider and (e) the addition of various new riders, including a Generation Resource Rider. Based upon a September 2016 PUCO order, OPCo will refile its ESP extension application and supporting testimony in November 2016.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect all components of its ESP rates, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. See “Ohio Electric Security Plan Filings” section of Note 4.

In 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate proceeding which implemented a PIRR to recover OPCo’s deferred fuel costs in rates beginning September 2012. The PUCO ruled that carrying charges should be calculated without an offset for accumulated deferred income taxes and that a long-term debt rate should be applied when collections begin. In JuneNovember 2012, OPCo appealed that PUCO order to the Supreme Court of Ohio claiming a long-term debt rate modified the previously adjudicated 2009 - 2011 ESP order, which granted a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) rate. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision that reversed as requested by OPCo, the PUCO order on the carrying cost rate issue. In October 2015 thisissue and remanded the matter was remanded back to the PUCO for reinstatement of the weighted average cost of capital (WACC)WACC rate. A decision fromIn June 2016, the PUCO approved OPCo’s proposed increase to the PIRR rates, in accordance with the Supreme Court of Ohio ruling. The increase to PIRR rates included $146 million in additional carrying charges and the recovery of $40 million in additional under-recovered fuel costs resulting from a decrease in customer demand. The increase is pending.effective July 2016 through December 2018. In July 2016, intervenors filed requests for rehearing with the PUCO, which the PUCO granted in August 2016.

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order which adopted and modified a new ESP that established base generation rates through May 2015. In 2013, this ruling was generally upheld in PUCO rehearing orders.

In July 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate capacity proceeding which stated thatrequiring OPCo mustto charge CRES providers the RPM price and authorized OPCo to defer a portion of its incurred capacity costs not recovered from CRES providers up to $188.88/MW day. The OPCo RPM price collected from CRES providers, which included reserve margins, was approximately $34/MW day through May 2014 and $150/MW day from June 2014 through May 2015. In December 2012, various parties filed notices of appeal of the capacity costs decision withApril 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio.Ohio issued two opinions related to the deferral of OPCo’s capacity charges. In one of the opinions, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the PUCO must reconsider an energy credit that was used to determine OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold of $188.88/MW day during the August 2012 through May 2015 period. The PUCO reduced OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold to $188.88/MW day largely due to an offset for an energy credit of $147.41/MW day. The Supreme Court of Ohio directed the PUCO to substantively address OPCo’s arguments that the $147.41/MW day credit was overstated by approximately $100/MW day due to various inaccuracies affecting input data and assumptions.

As part of the August 2012 ESP order, the PUCO established a non-bypassable RSR, effective September 2012. The RSR was collected from customers at $3.50/MWh through May 2014 and at $4.00/MWh for the period June 2014 through May 2015, with $1.00/MWh applied to the recovery of deferred capacity costs. In April and May 2013, OPCo and various intervenors filed appeals with the Supreme Court of Ohio challenging portions of the PUCO’s ESP order, including the RSR. In April 2015, the PUCO issued an order that modified and approved with modifications, OPCo’s July 2014 application to collect the unrecovered portion of the deferred capacity costs. In May 2015, the PUCO granted intervenors requests for rehearing. As of March 31,September 30, 2016, OPCo’s net deferred capacity costs balance was $320$239 million,

including debt carrying costs. Through March 31,In April 2016, OPCo hasthe second Supreme Court of Ohio opinion rejected a portion of OPCo’s RSR revenues collected $266 million induring the period September 2012 through May 2015 and directed the PUCO to reduce OPCo’s deferred capacity costs by these previously collected RSR revenues. The Supreme Court of Ohio was not able to determine the amount of the reduction to OPCo’s deferred capacity costs and related carrying charges.remanded the issue to the PUCO to determine the appropriate reduction. As directed by the PUCO, in May 2016, OPCo submitted revised RSR tariffs that reflect the RSR being collected subject to refund.

In 2013, the PUCO issued its Orders on Rehearing for the ESP which generally upheld its August 2012 order. The PUCO clarified that a final reconciliation of revenues and expenses would be permitted for any over- or under-recovery on several riders including fuel. In addition, the PUCO addressed certain issues around the energy auctions while other SSO issues related to the energy auctions were deferred to a separate docket related to the competitive bid process (CBP). In 2013, OPCo and various intervenors filed appeals with the Supreme Court of Ohio challenging portions of the PUCO’s ESP order.

In January 2014, the PUCO denied all rehearing requests and agreed to issue a supplemental request for an independent auditor in the 2012 - 2013 FAC proceeding to separately examine the recovery of the fixed fuel costs, including OVEC. In March 2014, the PUCO approved OPCo’s request to implement riders related to the unbundling of the FAC. In October 2014, the independent auditor, selected by the PUCO, filed its report with the PUCO for the period August 2012 through May 2015. If the PUCO ultimately concludes that a portion of the fixed fuel costs are also recovered through OPCo’s $188.88/MW day capacity charge, the independent auditor has recommended a methodology for calculating a refund of a portion of certain fixed fuel costs. The retail share of these fixed fuel costs is approximately $90 million annually. A hearing related to this matter has not been scheduled. Management believes that no over-recovery of costs has occurred and disagrees with the findings in the audit report.

In AprilJune 2016, OPCo filed a request with the Supreme Court of Ohio issued two opinions relatedPUCO that requested a consolidated procedural schedule to theresolve interrelated proceedings including (a) OPCo’s deferral of OPCo’s capacity charges. The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled thatcosts for the PUCO must reconsider an energy credit that was used to determine OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold of $188.88/MW day during theperiod August 2012 through May 2015, period. The PUCO reduced OPCo’s authorized capacity deferral threshold to $188.88/MW day largely due to an offset for an energy credit of $147.41/MW day. The Supreme Court of Ohio directed(b) the PUCO to substantively address OPCo’s arguments that the $147.41/MW day credit was overstated by approximately $100.00/MW day due to various inaccuracies affecting input data and assumptions.

Due to the interrelated nature of thesethe two Supreme Court of Ohio opinions that directly relate to OPCo’s deferred capacity costs, management believes that the PUCO will rule upon boththese issues together. Further, management believes that the net impact of these issues will largely offset and will not result in a material future reduction of OPCo’s net income.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect all components of its ESP rates, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. See “Ohio Electric Security Plan Filings” section of Note 4.

In September 2016, AEP signed an agreement to sell Darby, Gavin, Lawrenceburg and Waterford Plants (“Disposition Plants”) totaling 5,326 MWs of competitive generation for approximately $2.2 billion to a nonaffiliated party. The sale is subject to regulatory approvals from the FERC, the IURC and federal clearance pursuant to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR). In October 2016, the Federal Trade Commission granted the sale early termination of the HSR waiting period thereby satisfying the HSR conditions to close the transaction. As of September 30, 2016, the net book value of these assets, including related materials and supplies inventory and CWIP, was $1.8 billion. AEP expects to receive net proceeds of approximately $1.2 billion in cash after taxes, debt retirement and transaction fees. AEP is evaluating options to invest these proceeds, including reinvestment in regulated businesses and renewable energy projects and additional debt retirement. The sale is expected to close in the first quarter of 2017. An after tax gain of approximately $150 million is expected from the sale subject to inventory true-ups, income tax and other adjustments.

In September 2016, due to AEP’s ongoing evaluation of strategic alternatives for AGR’sits merchant generation assets, declining forecasts of future energy and capacity prices, and a decreasing likelihood of cost recovery through regulatory proceedings or legislation in the state of Ohio providing for the recovery of AEP’s existing Ohio merchant generation assets, AEP performed an impairment analysis at the unit level on the remaining merchant generation assets in accordance with accounting guidance for impairments of long-lived assets. The evaluation was performed using generating unit specific estimated future cash flows and resulted in a material impairment of certain merchant generation fleet includedassets. As a result, AEP recorded a pretax impairment of $2.3 billion ($1.5 billion, net of tax) in Asset Impairments and Other Related Charges on the Generation & Marketing segment,statement of operations related to 2,684 MWs of Ohio merchant generation including Cardinal Unit 1, 43.5% ownership interest in Conesville Unit 4, Conesville Units 5-6, 26.0% ownership interest in Stuart Units 1-4, and 25.4% ownership interest in Zimmer Unit 1, as well as AEGCo’s Lawrenceburg Plant, allPutnam coal and I&M’s Price River coal reserves, Desert Sky and Trent Wind Farms and the merchant generation portion of which operate in PJM.  Potentialthe Oklaunion Plant. As of September 30, 2016, the remaining net book value of these assets is $50 million. See “Merchant Generating Assets (Generation & Marketing Segment)” section of Note 6 for additional information.

Management continues to evaluate potential alternatives for the remaining merchant generation assets. These potential alternatives may include, but are not limited to, continuedpropose restructuring of Ohio electricity regulations to allow certain of these assets to be acquired by OPCo for the benefit of its customers, transfer or sale of AEP’s ownership interests, or a wind down of the merchant coal-fired generation fleet oroperations. AEP is also continuing a sale ofseparate strategic review and evaluating alternatives related to the merchant generation fleet.48 MW Racine Hydroelectric Plant. Management has not made a decision regarding the potential alternatives, nor have they set a specific time frame for a decision.decision on these assets. These alternatives could result in a lossadditional losses which could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

SWEPCo constructed the Turk Plant, a base load 600 MW pulverized coal ultra-supercritical generating unit in Arkansas, which was placed into service in December 2012 and is included in the Vertically Integrated Utilities segment. SWEPCo owns 73% (440 MW) of the Turk Plant and operates the facility.

The APSC granted approval for SWEPCo to build the Turk Plant by issuing a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (CECPN) for the SWEPCo Arkansas jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant (approximately 20%). Following an appeal by certain intervenors, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a decision that reversed the APSC’s grant of the CECPN. In June 2010, in response to an Arkansas Supreme Court decision, the APSC issued an order which reversed and set aside the previously granted CECPN. This share of the Turk Plant output is currently not subject to cost-based rate recovery and is being sold into the wholesale market. Approximately 80% of the Turk Plant investment is recovered under cost-based rate recovery in Texas, Louisiana, and through SWEPCo’s wholesale customers under FERC-based rates. As of September 30, 2016, the net book value of Turk Plant was $1.5 billion, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP. 

If SWEPCo cannot ultimately recover its investment and expenses related to the Turk Plant, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

In 2012, SWEPCo initiated a proceeding to establish new formula base rates in Louisiana, including recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant. In February 2013, a settlement was approved by the LPSC that increased SWEPCo’s Louisiana total rates by approximately $2 million annually, effective March 2013. The March 2013 base rates are based upon a 10% return on common equity and cost recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant and Stall Unit, subject to refund. The settlement also provided that the LPSC would review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo would recover non-fuel Turk Plant costs and a full weighted-average cost of capital return on the prudently incurred Turk Plant investment in jurisdictional rate base, effective January 2013. In December 2014, the LPSC approved a settlement agreement related to the staff review of the cost of service. The settlement agreement reduced the requested revenue increase by $3 million, primarily due to the timing of both the allowed recovery of certain existing regulatory assets and the establishment of a regulatory asset for certain previously expensed costs. A hearing at the LPSC related to the Turk Plant prudence review is scheduled for November 2016.March 2017. If the LPSC orders refunds based upon the pending prudence review of the Turk Plant investment, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. See the “2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing” section of Note 4.

As of March 31,September 30, 2016, the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $606$632 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.  As of March 31,In April 2016, Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was retired. Upon retirement, $76 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was $84 million, before costand the related asset retirement obligation costs. Management will seek recovery of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP. Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was considered probable of abandonment and was retiredthe remaining regulatory assets in April 2016.future rate proceedings.

If any of these costs are not recoverable, including retirement-related costs for Welsh Plant, Unit 2, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

In July 2015, PSO filed a request with the OCC to increase annual revenues by $137 million to recover costs associated with its environmental compliance plan for the Federal EPA’s Regional Haze Rule and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and to recover investments and other costs that have increased since the last base rate case. The annual increase consists of (a) a base rate increase of $89 million, which includes $48 million in increased depreciation expense that reflects, among other things, recovery through June 2026 of Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4, (b) a rider or base rate increase of $44 million to recover costs for the environmental controls being installed on Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and the Comanche Plant and (c) a request to include environmental consumable costs in the FAC, estimated to be $4 million annually. The rate increase includes a proposed return on common equity of 10.5% effective in January 2016. The proposed $44 million increase related to environmental investments was effective in March 2016, after the Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls were placed in service. The total estimated cost of the environmental controls to be installed at Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and the Comanche Plant is $219 million, excluding AFUDC. As of September 30, 2016, PSO had incurred costs of $180 million and $43 million, including AFUDC, for Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 and Comanche Plant, respectively.

In addition, the filing also notified the OCC that the incremental replacement capacity and energy costs, including the first year effects of new PPAs, estimated to be $35 million, will be incurred related to the environmental compliance plan due to the closure of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, which would be recovered through the FAC. In April 2016, Northeastern Plant, Unit 4 was retired. Upon retirement, $87 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4. These regulatory assets are pending regulatory approval.

In October 2015, testimony was filed by OCC staffJune 2016, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a report related to PSO’s base rate case filing and intervenors with recommendations that included increases to base rates and/or the proposed environmental rider ranging from $10 million to $31 million, based upon returnssubsequently provided an additional supplemental report in August 2016. The ALJ recommended a 9.25% return on common equity ranging from 8.75% to 9.3%,equity. The ALJ found that PSO’s environmental compliance plan is prudent and increases to depreciation expense ranging from $23 million to $46 million. Additionally, recommendations by certain intervenors included (a) noprovided for cost recovery of PSO’sthe investment in this case with a recommended investment cap of $210 million on environmental controls installed at Northeastern Plant, Unit 3 environmental controls, (b) no recovery of3. Additionally, the plant balances at the time the units are retired in 2016 and 2026, (c) denial of returns on the book values after the retirement dates, or to be set at only the cost of debt, and (d) the disallowance of the capacity costs associated with the PPAs. Additionally, some intervenors recommended no changeALJ recommendations included (a) a $14 million increase in depreciation rates forexpense, (b) continued depreciation of Northeastern Plant, Units 3 and 4. These units are currently being depreciated4 through 2040. Hearings at2040 (no accelerated depreciation), (c) return of, but no return on, the remaining net book value of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, (d) elimination of the rider to recover advanced metering starting in December 2016, without inclusion in base rates and (e) elimination of the system reliability rider through consolidation in base rates, without addressing a transition for recovery of rider costs, including deferred costs. The estimated annual revenue increase resulting from the ALJ recommendations is approximately $47 million.

In June and September 2016, PSO, the OCC were heldstaff, the Attorney General and intervenors filed exceptions to the ALJ reports. The OCC staff filed exceptions that supported the full recovery of Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, including a return, and recommended a $32 million increase in December 2015. In January 2016, PSO implemented an interim annual base rate increase of $75 million, subject to refund pending a final order from the OCC.revenues. An order from the OCC is anticipated byin the end of the thirdfourth quarter of 2016.

If any of these costs, including a return on Northeastern Plant, Unit 4, are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. See the “2015 Oklahoma Base Rate Case” section of Note 4.

In MarchSeptember 2016, APCoI&M and WPCocertain intervenors filed their combined annual ENEC filingan amended settlement agreement with the WVPSC which requested an increase in ENEC rates of $108 million to be effective July 2016. The increase primarily relates to recovery of the December 2015 under-recovered ENEC deferral balance andIURC.  This agreement amends a previously approved 2014 settlement agreement that addresses the recovery of costs associated with the continuation and expansion43.5% of certain transmission expenses through the Indiana PJM rider through 2017.

The amended agreement allows I&M to recover 100% of the Indiana jurisdictional share of these transmission expenses not recovered through base rates through the Indiana PJM rider, subject to a $109 million cap for the period January 2017 through June 2018. Beginning July 2018, I&M will be allowed to recover 100% of the Indiana jurisdictional share of these transmission expenses through the Indiana PJM rider, without a cap, until the issue is addressed by the IURC in a future proceeding, subject to the condition that I&M files a base rate case on or before January 2018. The amended agreement also provides for deferral of incremental vegetation management expenses over the period January 2017 through June 2018.  Any vegetation management expenses deferred would reduce the cap for the transmission expenses described above. As part of the amended settlement, I&M agreed that it will not file a base rate case before July 2017 and generation construction projects. If anywill not implement new base rates prior to July 2018. A hearing at the IURC was held in October 2016.

In June 2016, TCC and TNC filed applications with the PUCT and FERC that requested approval to merge TCC and TNC into AEP Utilities, Inc. Upon merger, AEP Utilities, Inc. will change its name to AEP Texas Inc. The proposed merger would be effective December 31, 2016. The applications proposed no changes to current TCC and TNC rates. A hearing at the PUCT was held in August 2016. In September 2016, the FERC issued an order approving the merger application. In October 2016, the ALJ issued a proposal for decision that recommends approval of the merger provided certain post-merger conditions are not recoverable,imposed. The conditions recommended by the ALJ include a) the sharing of certain interest rate savings with customers and b) an annual credit to customers of approximately $630 thousand for savings resulting from an expected reduction in post-merger debt issuance costs, effective until the next base rate case. Management is evaluating the conditions recommended by the ALJ. A decision from the PUCT is expected in the fourth quarter of 2016.

In October 2016, several parties filed a joint complaint with the FERC that states the base return on common equity used by various AEP affiliates in calculating formula transmission rates under the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) is excessive and should be reduced from 10.99% to 8.32%, effective upon the date of the complaint. Management is reviewing the filing and evaluating a response to the complaint. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that is reasonably possible of occurring. If the FERC orders revenue reductions, including refunds from the date of filing, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

In January 2016, KGPCo filed a request with the TRA to increase base rates by $12 million annually based upon a proposed return on common equity of 10.66%. New rates are expected to be implemented in the third quarter of 2016. A hearing atIn August 2016, the TRA is scheduled for Augustapproved a settlement agreement that included an $8 million annual increase in base rates with a 9.85% return on common equity effective September 2016. If KGPCo does not recover its costs, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

In February 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 are frozen until after the Virginia SCC rules on APCo’s next biennial review, which APCo will file in March 2020 for the 2018 and 2019 test years. These amendments also preclude the Virginia SCC from performing biennial reviews of APCo’s earnings for the years 2014 through 2017. APCo’s financial statements adequately address the impact of these amendments. The amendments provide that APCo will absorb its Virginia jurisdictional share of incremental generation and distribution costs incurred during 2014 through 2017 that are associated with severe weather events and/or natural disasters and costs associated with potential asset impairments related to new carbon emission guidelines issued by the Federal EPA.

In February 2016, certain APCo industrial customers filed a petition with the Virginia SCC requesting the issuance of a declaratory order that finds the amendments to Virginia law suspending biennial reviews unconstitutional and, accordingly, directs APCo to make biennial review filings beginning in 2016. In FebruaryJuly 2016, APCo filed a motion to stay the Virginia SCC’s considerationSCC issued an order that denied the petition. In July 2016, intervenors, including certain APCo industrial customers, filed an appeal of the petition due to a pending appeal atorder with the Supreme Court of Virginia by industrial customers of a non-related utility regarding the constitutionality of the amendments. APCo and other parties have filed their responses to the petition. Oral arguments at the Virginia SCC were held in March 2016.Virginia. Management is unable to predict the outcome of these challenges.challenges to the Virginia legislation. If the biennial review process is reinstated in advance of March 2020, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

AGR is required to offer all of its available generation capacity in the PJM RPMReliability Pricing Model (RPM) auction, which is conducted three years in advance of the delivery year.

In June 2015, FERC approved PJM’s proposal to create a new Capacity Performance (CP) product, intended to improve generator performance and reliability during emergency events by allowing higher offers into the RPM auction and imposing greater charges for non-performance during emergency events. PJM will procureprocured approximately 80% CP and 20% Base Capacity for the June 2018 through May 2019 and June 2019 through May 2020 periods, while transitioning to 100% CP with the June 2020 through May 2021 period. FERC also approved transition incremental auctions to procure CP for the June 2016 through May 2017 and June 2017 through May 2018 periods.

AGR cleared 7,169 MW7,169MW at $134/MW-day for the June 2016 through May 2017 period, replacing the original auction clearing price of $59.37/MW-day. AGR cleared 6,495 MW6,495MW for the June 2017 through May 2018 period at $151.50/MW-day, replacing the original auction clearing price of $120/MW-day.

In August 2015, PJM held its first base residual auction implementing CP rules for the June 2018 through May 2019 period. PJM cleared approximately 81% of the capacity for the June 2018 through May 2019 period as CP and 19% as Base Capacity. AGR cleared 7,209 MW at the CP auction price of $164.77/MW-day. The base residual auction for the June 2019 through May 2020 period was conducted in May 2016. AGR cleared 7,301 MW at the CP auction price of $100/MW-day. Shown below are the results for the June 2018 through May 2019 period:and June 2019 through May 2020 periods:

The FERC order exempted Fixed Resource Requirement (FRR) entities, including APCo, I&M, KPCo and WPCo, from the CP rules through the delivery period ending May 2019. In July 2015, AEP filed a request seeking rehearing of the FERC order approving CP. AEP is awaiting an order on its request for rehearing and will continueBeginning in June 2019, FRR entities are subject to advocate for further improvements to the CP rules and the capacity market as a whole through the PJM stakeholder process.rules.

In the ordinary course of business, AEP is involved in employment, commercial, environmental and regulatory litigation. Since it is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, management cannot predict the eventual resolution, timing or amount of any loss, fine or penalty. Management assesses the probability of loss for each contingency and accrues a liability for cases that have a probable likelihood of loss if the loss can be estimated. For details on the regulatory proceedings and pending litigation see Note 4 - Rate Matters, Note 6 - Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies and the “Litigation” section of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in the 2015 Annual Report. Additionally, see Note 4 - Rate Matters and Note 5 - Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies included herein. Adverse results in these proceedings have the potential to reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

In July 2013, the Wilmington Trust Company filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against AEGCo and I&M alleging that it will 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 or retirement of the unit.  The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants’ actions constitute breach of the lease and participation agreement.  The plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that the defendants breached the lease, must satisfy obligations related to installation of emission control equipment and indemnify the plaintiff.  The New York court granted a motion to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  In October 2013, a motion to dismiss the case was filed on behalf of AEGCo and I&M. In January 2015, the court issued an opinion and order granting the motion in part and denying the motion in part. The court dismissed certain of the plaintiff’s claims. Several claims remained, including the claim for breach of the participation agreement and a claim alleging breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

I&M are in breach of certain contract provisions that Plaintiffs allege operate to protect the Plaintiffs’ residual interests in the unit and whether the trial court erred in dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims that AEGCo and I&M breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This matter is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring.

See a complete discussion of these matters in the “Environmental Issues” section of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in the 2015 Annual Report. AEP will seek recovery of expenditures for pollution control technologies and associated costs from customers through rates in regulated jurisdictions.  Environmental rules could result in accelerated depreciation, impairment of assets or regulatory disallowances.  If AEP is unable to recover the costs of environmental compliance, it would reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

The rules and proposed environmental controls discussed in the next several sections will have a material impact on the generating units in the AEP System.  Management continues to evaluate the impact of these rules, project scope and technology available to achieve compliance. As of March 31,September 30, 2016, the AEP System had a total generating capacity of approximately 32,00031,000 MWs, of which approximately 18,00016,000 MWs are coal-fired.  Management continues to refine the cost estimates of complying with these rules and other impacts of the environmental proposals on the fossil generating facilities. Based upon management estimates, AEP’s investment to meet these proposed requirements ranges from approximately $3.2$2.8 billion to $3.8$3.4 billion through 2025. These amountsManagement continues to evaluate the impact of the merchant fleet operations on this range. The estimates include investments to convert some of the coal generation to natural gas.

The cost estimates will change depending on the timing of implementation and whether the Federal EPA provides flexibility in the final rules.  The cost estimates will also change based on: (a) the states’ implementation of these regulatory programs, including the potential for state implementation plans (SIPs) or federal implementation plans (FIPs) that impose more stringent standards, (b) additional rulemaking activities in response to court decisions, (c) the actual performance of the pollution control technologies installed on the units, (d) changes in costs for new pollution controls, (e) new generating technology developments, (f) total MWs of capacity retired and replaced, including the type and amount of such replacement capacity and (g) other factors.  In addition, management is continuing to evaluate the economic feasibility of environmental investments on both regulated and nonregulatedcompetitive plants.

In May 2015, AEP retired the following plants or units of plants:plants were retired:

As of March 31,September 30, 2016, the net book value of the AGR units listed above was zero.  The net book value before cost of removal, including related materials and supplies inventory and CWIP balances, of the regulated plants in the table above was approved for recovery, except for $148$144 million which management plans to seek regulatory approval.

In April 2016, AEP retired the following units of plants:

As of March 31,September 30, 2016, the net book value before cost of removal, including related materials and supplies inventory and CWIP balances, of the PSO and SWEPCo units listed above was $178$161 million. For Northeastern Station, Unit 4, PSO is seeking regulatory recovery of remaining net book values. For Welsh Plant, Unit 2, managementSWEPCo will seek regulatory recovery of remaining net book values.

In October 2015, KPCo obtained permits following the KPSC’s approval to convert its 278 MW Big Sandy Plant, Unit 1 to natural gas. Management expects to beginBig Sandy Plant, Unit 1 began operations as a natural gas unit in the second quarter ofMay 2016.  As of March 31, 2016, the net book value, before cost of removal, including related materials and supplies inventory and CWIP balances of Big Sandy Plant, Unit 1 was $110 million.

APCo obtained permits following the Virginia SCC’s and WVPSC’s approval to convert its 470 MW Clinch River Plant, Units 1 and 2 to natural gas. In the third and fourth quarters of 2015, APCo retired the coal-related assets of Clinch River Plant, Units 1 and 2. Of the retired coal related assets for Clinch River Plant, Units 1 and 2, management plans to seek regulatory approval for $24 million. Clinch River Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2 began operations as natural gas units in February 2016 and April 2016, respectively. As of March 31, 2016, the net book value before cost of removal, including related materials and supplies inventory and CWIP balances, of Clinch River Plant, Units 1 and 2 was $155 million.

To the extent existing generation assets and the cost of new equipment and converted facilities are not recoverable, it could materially reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

The CAA establishes a comprehensive program to protect and improve the nation’s air quality and control sources of air emissions. The states implement and administer many of these programs and could impose additional or more stringent requirements.

The Federal EPA issued the final maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for coal and oil-fired power plants in 2012, but the rule was remanded to the Federal EPA upon further reviewreview. The Federal EPA issued a supplemental finding, received comments and affirmed its decision on the MACT standards for power plants. That decision has been challenged in the courts but the rule remains in effect. See “Mercury and Other Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Regulation” section below.

Notable developments in significant CAA regulatory requirements affecting AEP’s operations are discussed in the following sections.

In 2012, the Federal EPA issued a rule addressing a broad range of HAPs from coal and oil-fired power plants.  The rule establishes unit-specific emission rates for units burning coal on a 30-day rolling average basis for mercury, PM (as a surrogate for particles of nonmercury metals) and hydrogen chloride (as a surrogate for acid gases).  In addition, the rule proposes work practice standards, such as boiler tune-ups, for controlling emissions of organic HAPs and dioxin/furans.  The effective date of the final rule was April 16, 2012 and compliance was required within three years. Management obtained a one-year administrative extension at several units to facilitate the installation of controls or to avoid a serious reliability problem. In addition, the Federal EPA issued an enforcement policy describing the circumstances under which an administrative consent order might be issued to provide a fifth year for the installation of controls or completion of reliability upgrades.

In April 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied all of the petitions for review of the April 2012 final rule. Industry trade groups and several states filed petitions for further review in the U.S. Supreme Court and the court granted those petitions in November 2014.

In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded the MATSMercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule for further proceedings consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that the Federal EPA was unreasonable in refusing to consider costs in its determination whether to regulate emissions of HAPs from power plants. The Federal EPA issued notice of a supplemental finding concluding that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate HAP emissions from coal-fired and oil-fired units. Management submitted comments on the proposal and will continue to monitor future regulatory developments.proposal. In April 2016, the Federal EPA affirmed its determination that regulation of HAPs from electric generating units is necessary and appropriate. Petitions for review of the Federal EPA’s April 2016 determination have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The rule remains in effect.

The majority of the states where AEP has generating facilities passed legislation establishing renewable energy, alternative energy and/or energy efficiency requirements that can assist in reducing carbon emissions.  Management is taking steps to comply with these requirements, including increasing wind power purchases and broadening the AEP System’s portfolio of energy efficiency programs.

The Federal EPA also published proposed “model” rules that can be adopted by the states that would allow sources within “trading ready” state programs to trade, bank or sell allowances or credits issued by the states. These rules would also be the basis for any federal plan issued by the Federal EPA in a state that fails to submit or receive approval for a state plan. The Federal EPA intends to finalize either a rate-based or mass-based trading program that can be enforced in states that fail to submit approved plans by the deadlines established in the final guidelines. States are required to submit final plansThe Federal EPA established a 90-day public comment period on the proposed rules and management submitted comments. In June 2016, the Federal EPA issued a separate proposal for the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) that was included in the model rules. The Federal EPA will accept comments on the proposed rules through November 1, 2016. Through the CEIP, states could issue allowances or an extension request by September 2016credits for eligible actions prior to the Federal EPA. States receiving an extension request must submit final plans by September 2018.first compliance period under the CPP. Management is evaluating the rules impactpotential impacts of the final CPP and the proposed CEIP, as well as the anticipated actions by states where assets are located. The final rules are being challenged in the courts. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay on the final Clean Power Plan, including all of the deadlines for submission of initial or final state plans. The stay will remain in effect until a final decision is issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court considers any petition for review. The Federal EPA established a 90-day public comment period on the proposed rules and management submitted comments.

In April 2015, the Federal EPA published a final rule to regulate the disposal and beneficial re-use of coal combustion residuals (CCR), including fly ash and bottom ash generated at coal-fired electric generating units and also FGD gypsum generated at some coal-fired plants.  

The final rule became effective in October 2015. The Federal EPA will regulateregulates CCR as a non-hazardous solid waste and issuedby its issuance of new minimum federal solid waste management standards. The rule applies to new and existing active CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments at operating electric utility or independent power production facilities. The rule imposes new and additional construction and operating obligations, including location restrictions, liner criteria, structural integrity requirements for impoundments, operating criteria and additional groundwater monitoring requirements. The rule does not apply to inactive CCR landfills, and inactive surface impoundments at retired generating stations

or the beneficial use of CCR. The rule is self-implementing so state action is not required. Because of this self-implementing feature, the rule contains extensive record keeping, notice and internet posting requirements. The CCR rule requirements contain a compliance schedule spanning an approximate four year implementation period. If CCR units do not meet these standards within the timeframes provided, they will be required to close. Extensions of time for closure are available provided there is no alternative disposal capacity or the owner can certify cessation of a boiler by a certain date. Challenges to the rule by industry associations of which AEP is a member are proceeding. In April 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that would require the Federal EPA to reconsider certain aspects of the rule. If approved, underIn June 2016, the settlement agreement,U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an order granting the voluntary remand of certain provisions including the Federal EPA’s issuance of a rule vacating the provision creating specific closure requirements will be vacated for inactive surface impoundments that complete closure by April 17, 2018. TheIn August 2016, the Federal EPA will proposeproposed a

Because AEP currently uses surface impoundments and landfills to manage CCR materials at generating facilities, significant costs will be incurred to upgrade or close and replace these existing facilities at some point in the future as the new rule is implemented. Management recorded a $95 million increase in asset retirement obligations in the second quarter of 2015 primarily due to the publication of the final rule. Management will continue to evaluate the rule’s impact on operations.

In February 2014, the Federal EPA completed a risk evaluation of the beneficial uses of coal fly ash in concrete and FGD gypsum in wallboard and concluded that the Federal EPA supports these beneficial uses.  Currently, approximately 40% of the coal ash and other residual products from AEP’s generating facilities are re-used in the production of cement and wallboard, as structural fill or soil amendments, as abrasives or road treatment materials and for other beneficial uses.  Encapsulated beneficial uses are not materially impacted by the new rule but additional demonstrations may be required to continue land applications in significant amounts except in road construction projects.

In 2014, the Federal EPA issued a final rule setting forth standards for existing power plants that is intended to reduce mortality of aquatic organisms pinned against a plant’s cooling water intake screen (impingement) or entrained in the cooling water.  Entrainment is when small fish, eggs or larvae are drawn into the cooling water system and affected by heat, chemicals or physical stress.  The final rule affects all plants withdrawing more than two million gallons of cooling water per day. The rule offers seven technology options to comply with the impingement standard and requires site-specific studies to determine appropriate entrainment compliance measures at facilities withdrawing more than 125 million gallons per day. Additional requirements may be imposed as a result of consultation with other federal agencies to protect threatened and endangered species and their habitats. Facilities with existing closed cycle recirculating cooling systems, as defined in the rule, are not expected to require any technology changes. Facilities subject to both the impingement standard and site-specific entrainment studies will typically be given at least three years to conduct and submit the results of those studies to the permit agency. Compliance timeframes will then be established by the permit agency through each facility’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for installation of any required technology changes, as those permits are renewed over the next five to eight years. Petitions for review of the final rule were filed by industry and environmental groups and are currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Briefs by the various parties are due during the fourth quarter of 2016.

In addition, the Federal EPA developed revised effluent limitation guidelines for electricity generating facilities.  A final rule was issued in November 2015. The rule has been challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Industry petitioners, including SWEPCo, have filed a joint motion for reconsideration of the single judge order denying the motion to complete the administrative record. In addition to other requirements, the final rule establishes limits on flue gas desulfurization wastewater, zero discharge for fly ash and bottom ash transport water and flue gas mercury control wastewater. The applicability of these requirements is as soon as possible after November 2018 and no later than December 2023. These new requirements will be implemented through each facility’s wastewater discharge permit. Management will continuecontinues to review the final rule in detail to evaluate whether the plants are currently meeting the proposed limitations, what technologies are incorporated into AEP’s long-range plans and what additional costs might be incurred. Management is assessingassess technology additions and retrofits.

In June 2015, the Federal EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly issued a final rule to clarify the scope of the regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court cases. The CWA provides for federal jurisdiction over “navigable waters” defined as “the waters of the United States.” This jurisdictional definition applies to all CWA programs, potentially impacting generation, transmission and distribution permitting and compliance requirements. Among those programs are: permits for wastewater and storm water discharges, permits for impacts to wetlands and water bodies and oil spill prevention planning. The final definition continues to recognize traditional navigable waters of the U.S. as jurisdictional as well as certain exclusions. The rule also contains a number of new specific definitions and criteria for determining whether certain other waters are jurisdictional because of a “significant nexus.” Management believes that clarity and efficiency in the permitting process is needed. Management

Earnings (Loss) Attributable to AEP Common Shareholders decreased from $629income of $518 million in 2015 to $501a loss of $766 million in 2016 primarily due to:

These decreases were partially offset by:

AEP’s results of operations by operating segment are discussed below.

Heating degree days and cooling degree days are metrics commonly used in the utility industry as a measure of the impact of weather on revenues.  In general, degree day changes in the eastern region have a larger effect on revenues than changes in the western region due to the relative size of the two regions and the number of customers within each region.

The major components of the decreaseincrease in Gross Margin, defined as revenues less the related direct cost of fuel, including consumption of chemicals and emissions allowances, and purchased electricity were as follows:

Expenses and Other and Income Tax Expense changed between years as follows:

Heating degree days and cooling degree days are metrics commonly used in the utility industry as a measure of the impact of weather on revenues.  In general, degree day changes in the eastern region have a larger effect on revenues than changes in the western region due to the relative size of the two regions and the number of customers within each region.

The major components of the increase in Gross Margin, defined as revenues less the related direct cost of purchased electricity and amortization of generation deferrals were as follows: