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 “Part I – Item 2 Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of this quarterly 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:

The forward-looking statements of the Registrants speak only as of the date of this report or as of the date they are made.  The Registrants expressly disclaim any obligation to update any forward-looking information, except as required by law.  For a more detailed discussion of these factors, see “Risk Factors” in Part I of the 2022 Annual Report and in Part II of this report.

The Registrants may use AEP’s website as a distribution channel for material company information. Financial and other important information regarding the Registrants is routinely posted on and accessible through AEP’s website at www.aep.com/investors/. In addition, you may automatically receive email alerts and other information about the Registrants when you enroll your email address by visiting the “Email Alerts” section at www.aep.com/investors/.

Our principal corporate website address is www.aep.com. Information on our website is not incorporated by reference herein and is not part of this Form 10-Q. We make available free of charge through our website our Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after such documents are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. The SEC maintains a website at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding AEP.

AEP’s weather-normalized retail sales volumes for the firstsecond quarter of 2023 increased by 3.3%1.5% from the firstsecond quarter of 2022. Weather-normalized residential sales decreased by 1.4%2.4% in the firstsecond quarter of 2023 from the firstsecond quarter of 2022. This decrease was primarily due to a reduction in usage per customer due to the impacts of inflation, partially offset by an increase in customers. Weather-normalized commercial sales increased 7.8%by 7.7% in the firstsecond quarter of 2023 fromcompared to the firstsecond quarter of 2022. The increase in commercial sales was primarily due to new data center loads.loads and economic development. AEP’s firstsecond quarter 2023 industrial sales volumes increased by 5.1%0.1% from the second quarter of 2022.

AEP’s weather-normalized retail sales volumes for the six months ended June 30, 2023 increased by 2.4% compared to the first quartersix months ended June 30, 2022. Weather-normalized residential sales decreased by 1.8% for the six months ended June 30, 2023 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2022. This decrease was primarily due to a reduction in usage per customer due to the impacts of inflation, partially offset by an increase in customers. Weather-normalized commercial sales increased by 7.8% for the six months ended June 30, 2023 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2022. The increase in commercial sales was primarily due to new data center loads and economic development. AEP’s industrial sales volumes for the six months ended June 30, 2023 increased by 2.6% compared to the six months ended June 30, 2022. The increase in industrial sales was spread across many sectors.

The Registrants have experienced certain supply chain disruptions driven by several factors including staffing and travel issues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, international tensions including the ramifications of regional conflict, increased demand due to the economic recovery from the pandemic, inflation, labor shortages in certain trades and shortages in the availability of certain raw materials. These supply chain disruptions have not had a material impact on the Registrants net income, cash flows and financial condition, but have extended lead times for certain goods and services and have contributed to higher prices for fuel, materials, labor, equipment and other needed commodities. Management has implemented risk mitigation strategies in an attempt to mitigate the impacts of these supply chain disruptions.

AEP and its utilities finance its operations with commercial paper and other variable rate instruments thatinstruments. AEP generally uses short-term borrowings to fund working capital needs until long-term funding is arranged. Sources of long-term funding includes the issuance of long-term debt. These financing options to maintain adequate liquidity are subject to fluctuations in interest rates. The United States economy has experienced a significant level of inflation that has contributed to increased uncertainty in the outlook of near-term economic activity, including whether inflation will continue and at what rate. To the extent that the Federal Reserve continuesinterest rates continue to raise short-term interest rates,increase, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

A prolonged continuation or a further increase in the severity of supply chain and inflationary disruptions could result in additional increases in the cost of certain goods, services and cost of capital and further extend lead times which could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

The impact of the Termination Agreement did not have a material impact on AEP’s statements of income for the three and six months ended March 31,June 30, 2023. Upon reverting to a held and used model in the first quarter of 2023, AEP iswas required to present its investment in the Kentucky Operations at the lower of fair value or historical carrying value. As a result, AEP’s March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022 balance sheets reflectvalue which resulted in a $335 million and $363 million, respectively, pretax reduction in the basis of its investment in KPCo’s assets which is recorded in Property, Plant and Equipment. The change in AEP’s basis of itsreduced investment in KPCo’s assets from December 31, 2022 to March 31, 2023 reflectsis being amortized over the elimination30 year average useful life of the expected costs to sell from the measurement.KPCo assets.

In February 2022, AEP management announced the initiation of a process to sell all or a portion of AEP Renewables’ competitive contracted renewables portfolio within the Generation & Marketing segment. As of March 31,June 30, 2023, the competitive contracted renewable portfolio assets totaled 1.4 gigawatts of generation resources representing consolidated solar and wind assets, with a net book value of $1.2 billion, and a 50% interest in four joint venture wind farms, totaling $247$246 million, accounted for as equity method investments.

In late January 2023, AEP received final bids from interested parties. In February 2023, AEP’s Board of Directors approved management’s plan to sell the competitive contracted renewables portfolio and AEP signed an agreement to sell the competitive contracted renewables portfolio to a nonaffiliated party for $1.5 billion including the assumption of project debt. AEP recorded a pretax loss of $112 million ($88 million after-tax), in the first quarter of 2023 as a result of reaching Held for Sale status. Management concluded the impact of any other than temporary decline in the fair value of the four joint venture wind farms was not materialmaterial.

AEP expects to AEP’s March 31,close on the sale in the third quarter of 2023, financial statements.pending approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. AEP expects to receive cash proceeds, net of taxes, transaction fees and other customary closing adjustments, of approximately $1.2 billion. See the "Assets and Liabilities Held for Sale" section of Note 6 for additional information.

Management has continued a strategic evaluation of the business with a focus on core regulated utility operations, risk mitigation and simplification. As a result of these efforts, the following decisions have recently been made with respect to AEP Energy and AEP Onsite Partners.

In October 2022, AEP initiated a strategic evaluation for its ownership in AEP Energy, a wholly-owned retail energy supplier that supplies electricity and/or natural gas on a price risk managed basis to residential, commercial and industrial customers. AEP Energy provides various energy solutions in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio and Washington, D.C. AEP Energy had approximately 752,000844,000 customer accounts as of March 31,June 30, 2023. In April 2023, management completed the strategic evaluation of AEP Energy and initiated a sale process. The timing of the completion of the sales process is dependent upon a number of factors. AEP is currently estimatestargeting the salesales process for these businesses willto be completed byin the first half of 2024. Depending on the outcome of the sales process, it could reduce future net income and impact financial condition.

In April 2023, AEP also made a decision to include AEP Onsite Partners in a sale process. AEP OnSite Partners targets opportunities in distributed solar, combined heat and power, energy storage, waste heat recovery, energy efficiency, peaking generation and other energy solutions. As of March 31,June 30, 2023, AEP OnSite Partners owned projects located in 22 states, including approximately 168 MWs of installed solar capacity, and approximately 2627 MWs of solar projects under construction. As of March 31,June 30, 2023, the net book value of these assets was $350 $354

million. The timing of the completion of the sales process is dependent upon a number of factors. AEP is currently estimatestargeting the salesales process for these businesses willto be completed byin the first half of 2024.

AEP Onsite Partners also owns a 50% interest in NM Renewable Development, LLC, (NMRD) totaling $102$106 million accounted for as an equity method investment. The NMRD ownsportfolio consists of 8 operating solar projects totaling 135 MWs, one 50 MW project is under construction and has 6 projects totaling 440 MWs in development. Separate from the remainder of AEP Onsite Partners, AEP and the joint owner have agreed to initiate a separatejoint sales process for their respective interests in NMRD. The timing of the completion of the sales process is dependent upon a number of factors. AEP is currently estimatestargeting the salesales process for these businesses willto be completed in the fourth quarter of 2023.

If AEP is unable to recover the net book value or carrying value of these assets as part of the sale process, it could reduce future net income and impact financial condition.

In April 2023, AEP also initiated a strategic evaluation for its ownership ofin certain transmission joint ventures in the AEP Transmission HoldCo segment including Pioneer Transmission, LLC, Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC and Transource Energy. In July 2023, AEP made a decision to initiate a sales process for its investment in Pioneer Transmission, LLC and Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC. As of March 31,June 30, 2023, AEP’s investment in Pioneer Transmission, LLC, and Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC was $46 million and $19 million, respectively.

As of June 30, 2023, the net book value of Transource Energy was $272$278 million inclusive of $37$38 million related to noncontrolling interest on AEP’s balance sheet. As of March 31, 2023, AEP held investments in Pioneer Transmission, LLC, and Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC of $48 million and $20 million, respectively.

In August 2022, President Biden signed H.R. 5376 into law, commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 or IRA. Most notably this budget reconciliation legislation creates a 15% minimum tax on adjusted financial statement income (Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax or CAMT), extends and increases the value of PTCs and ITCs, adds a nuclear and clean hydrogen PTC, an energy storage ITC and allows the sale or transfer of tax credits to third parties for cash. As further significant guidance from Treasury and the IRS is expected on the tax provisions in the IRA, AEP will continue to monitor any issued guidance and evaluate the impact on future net income, cash flows and financial condition.

In December 2022,June 2023, the IRS released Notice 2023-7 addressing time sensitive issuesissued temporary regulations related to the CAMT. The notice provided initial guidance that AEP can begin to rely on in 2023 and also stated that additional guidance is expected,transfer of which AEP will continue to monitor and assess. Notably, the interim guidance in Notice 2023-7 confirmed the CAMT depreciation adjustment includes tax depreciation that is capitalized to inventory under §263A and recovered as part of cost of goods sold, providing significant relief to AEP’s potential CAMT exposure.

AEP’s public utility subsidiaries are involved in rate and regulatory proceedings at the FERC and their state commissions.  Depending on the outcomes, these rate and regulatory proceedings can have a material impact on results of operations, cash flows and possibly financial condition. AEP is currently involved in the following key proceedings. See Note 4 - Rate Matters for additional information.

The Registrants file rate cases with their regulatory commissions in order to establish fair and appropriate electric service rates to recover their costs and earn a fair return on their investments. The outcomes of these regulatory proceedings impact the Registrants’ current and future results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

The following tables show the Registrants’ completed and pending base rate case proceedings in 2023. See Note 4 - Rate Matters for additional information.

Increased fuel and purchased power prices in excess of amounts included in fuel-related revenues has led to an increase in the under collection of fuel costs from customers in most jurisdictions. The table below illustrates the increase (decrease) in the deferred fuel regulatory assets by company and jurisdiction, excluding the impacts of the February 2021 severe winter weather event. See the “February 2021 Severe Winter Weather Impacts in SPP” sectionssection in Note 4 for additional information. If any of these deferred fuel costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

The AEP utility subsidiaries are working with various state commissions on the timing of recovering deferred fuel balances and have made the following recent filings:

In April 2022, APCo and WPCo (the Companies) submitted their 2022 annual ENEC filing with the WVPSC requesting a $297 million annual increase in ENEC revenues, effective September 1, 2022. In February 2023, the WVPSC issued an order stating that the commission will not grant additional rate increases for fuel costs until the WVPSC staff completes its prudency review. In April 2023, the Companies submitted their 2023 annual ENEC filing with the WVPSC, proposing two alternatives to increase ENEC rates effective September 1, 2023. The first alternative is a $293 million annual increase in ENEC rates comprised of a $89 million increase for current year ENEC expense and a $200 million annual increase for the recovery of the Companies’ February 28, 2023 ENEC under-recovery balances over three years, including debt and equity carrying costs. The second alternative is aan $89 million annual increase in ENEC rates with the Companies securitizing approximately $1.9 billion of assets, including $553 million relating to ENEC under-recoveries as of February 28, 2023. Additionally, in April 2023, the Staff submitted the prudency review prepared by an independent consultant retained by the WVPSC Staff ofstaff regarding the Companies’ operation of the Amos, Mountaineer and Mitchell coal plants that Staff was directed to conduct by the WVPSC in May 2022 (Consultant’s Report). Adoption of the Consultant’s Report’s findings by the WVPSC could result in a disallowance of up to $285 million. The Companies disagree with the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Consultant’s Report and intend to dispute them in the appropriate proceedings before the WVPSC. See “ENEC Filings” section of Note 4 for additional information.

In September 2022, the Director of the Public Utility Division of the OCC approved a Fuel Cost Adjustment rate designed to collect a $402 million deferred fuel balance over a 27-month period, effective with the first billing cycle of October 2022. PSO’s fuel and purchased power expenses are subject to an annual prudency review by the OCC.

In October 2022, APCo submitted its annual Virginia fuel factor filing with interim FAC rates effective November 2022.  To help mitigate the impact of rising fuel costs on customer bills, APCo proposed recovery of its deferred fuel balance as of October 31, 2022 over two years.  In March 2023, the Virginia SCC issued an order approving APCo’s request to increase its annual fuel factor by approximately $279 million and APCo’s request to recover its October 31, 2022 deferred fuel balance over two years.  As ordered by the Virginia SCC, APCo’s historical period fuel and purchased power expenses for the years 2019 through 2022 are currently subject to a fuel audit/prudency review.

In October 2022, SWEPCo filed a request with the PUCT for an interim fuel surcharge to recover $83 million of additional fuel costs incurred through August 2022. An interim rate is effective February 2023, subject to final approval by the PUCT. In April 2023, the PUCT issued an order approving an interim fuel surcharge, effective February 2023, allowing SWEPCo to recover $83 million of non Sabine and Oxbow mine related fuel costs through June 2024. In June 2023, an unopposed settlement agreement was filed with the request.

The growth of AEP’s regulated renewable generation portfolio reflects the company’s strategy to diversify generation resources to provide clean energy options to customers that meet both their energy and capacity needs.

Recently, the Registrants have made filings with various state regulatory commissions seeking approval to acquire 2,607612 MWs of owned renewable generation facilities, totaling approximately $6.1 billion, in addition to 484 MWs of renewable purchased power agreements, as included in the following table:

SWEPCo constructed the Turk Plant, a base load 600 MW (650 MW net maximum capacity) pulverized coal ultra-supercritical generating unit in Arkansas, which was placed in-service in December 2012 and is included in the Vertically Integrated Utilities segment. SWEPCo owns 73% (440 MWs/477 MWs) of the Turk Plant and operates the facility.

Approximately 20% of the Turk Plant output is currently not subject to cost-based rate recovery in Arkansas. This portion of the plant’s output is being sold into the wholesale market. Approximately 80% of the Turk Plant investment is recovered under retail cost-based rate recovery in Texas, Louisiana and through SWEPCo’s wholesale customers under FERC-approved rates. In November 2022, SWEPCo filed a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with the APSC for approval to operate the Turk plant to serve Arkansas customers and recover the associated costs through a cost recovery rider. Cost-based recovery of the Turk Plant would aid SWEPCo’s near-term capacity needs and support compliance with SPP’s 2023 increased capacity planning reserve margin requirements. In April 2023, intervenors filed testimony recommending the APSC deny the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity at this time.on the basis that the Turk Plant is not the least cost alternative.

In June 2023, SWEPCo filed rebuttal testimony with the APSC. In July 2023, additional intervenor testimony was filed with the APSC by the Attorney General of Arkansas and the APSC staff with recommendations consistent with the previously filed April 2023 intervenor testimony. A hearing is scheduled for the third quarter of 2023. As of March 31,June 30, 2023, the net book value of the Turk Plant was $1.4 billion, before cost of removal including CWIP and inventory. If SWEPCo cannot ultimately recover its investment and expenses related to the Arkansas retail portion of the Turk Plant, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

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.  Adverse results in these proceedings have the potential to reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. See Note 4 – Rate Matters and Note 5 – Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies for additional information.

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 HB6HB 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.individuals and inquiries regarding Empowering Ohio’s Economy, Inc., which is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, and related disclosures. Although the outcome of the SEC’s investigation cannot be predicted, management does not believe the results of this investigation will have a material impact on financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

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 “Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rule” section below 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 the Gavin Denial, as well asthese 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.

In AprilMay 2023, AEP received a letter from North American Coal Corporation (NACC) alleging that SWEPCo breached it’s coal supply contract withand Sabine, a subsidiary of NACC. The letter contendsNACC, filed suit against SWEPCo in Texas state court for breach of the Lignite Mining Agreement (LMA) between Sabine and SWEPCo. NACC and Sabine assert that the terms of the LMA require SWEPCo is obligated to runcontinue operating the Pirkey Plant untiland obtaining coal from the Sabine mine through 2035 orand that SWEPCo has breached the agreement by closing the plant. The complaint seeks both injunctive relief ordering SWEPCo to paycease demolition and reclamation activities at the Pirkey Plant and the Sabine mine and damages, which Sabine has asserted are $85 million in damages representing lost mining fees to Sabine.fees. The letter threatens legal action for unspecified injunctive reliefparties have entered into a standstill agreement staying both the litigation and breach of contract. Management does not believe SWEPCo is obligated to runcertain demolition and reclamation activities at the Pirkey Plant for any period of time beyond its useful life or that there is a valid claim for breach of contract or damages.and the Sabine mine. SWEPCo will continue to defend against the claims. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring.

AEP has a substantial capital investment program and incurs additional operational costs to comply with environmental control requirements.  Additional investments and operational changes will be made in response to existing and anticipated requirements to reduce emissions from fossil generation and in response to rules governing the beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion by-products, clean water and renewal permits for certain water discharges.

AEP is engaged in litigation about environmental issues, was notified of potential responsibility for the clean-up of contaminated sites and incurred costs for disposal of SNF and future decommissioning of the nuclear units.  Management is engaged in the development of possible future requirements including the items discussed below.  

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 cannot 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 below will have an impact on AEP System generating units.  Management continues to evaluate the impact of these rules, project scope and technology available to achieve compliance.  As of March 31,June 30, 2023, the AEP System owned generating capacity of approximately 24,60024,700 MWs, of which approximately 10,700 MWs were coal-fired.  Management continues to refine the cost estimates of complying with these rules and other impacts of the environmental proposals on fossil generation.

The cost estimates will change depending on the timing of implementation and whether the Federal EPA provides flexibility in finalizing proposed rules or revising certain existing requirements.  The cost estimates will also change based on: (a) potential state rules that impose more stringent standards, (b) additional rulemaking activities in response to court decisions, (c) actual performance of the pollution control technologies installed, (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, (g) compliance with the Federal EPA’s revised coal combustion residual rules and (h) other factors.  In addition, management continues to evaluate the economic feasibility of environmental investments on regulated and competitive plants.

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 primary regulatory programs that continue to drive investments in AEP’s existing generating units include: (a) periodic revisions to NAAQS and the development of SIPs to achieve more stringent standards, (b) implementation of the regional haze program by the states and the Federal EPA, (c) regulation of hazardous air pollutant emissions under MATS, (d) implementation and review of CSAPR and (e) the Federal EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil generation under Section 111 of the CAA. Notable developments in significant CAA regulatory requirements affecting AEP’s operations are discussed in the following sections.

The Federal EPA periodically reviews and revises the NAAQS for criteria pollutants under the CAA. Revisions tend to increase the stringency of the standards, which in turn may require AEP to make investments in pollution control equipment at existing generating units, or, since most units are already well controlled, to make changes in how units are dispatched and operated. In January 2023, the Federal EPA announced its proposed decision to strengthen the primary (health-based) annual PM2.5 standard. The Biden administration has previously indicated that it is likely to revisit the NAAQS for ozone, which were left unchanged by the prior administration following its review. Management cannot currently predict if any changes to either standard are likely to be finalized or what such changes may be, but will continue to monitor this issue and any future rulemakings.rulemakings

The Federal EPA issued a Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR) in 2005, which could require power plants and other facilities to install best available retrofit technology to address regional haze in federal parks and other protected areas. CAVR is implemented by the states, through SIPs, or by the Federal EPA, through FIPs. In 2017, the Federal EPA revised the rules governing submission of SIPs to implement the visibility programs, including a provision that postponed the due date for the next comprehensive SIP revisions until 2021. Petitions for review of the final rule revisions have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Arkansas has an approved regional haze SIP and all of SWEPCo's affected units are in compliance with the relevant requirements.

Excessive costs to comply with future legislation or regulations have led to the announcement of early plant closures and could force AEP to close additional coal-fired generation facilities earlier than their estimated useful life. If AEP is unable to recover the costs of its investments, it would reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

In April 2023, the Federal EPA issued a proposed rule that would revise the MATS for power plants. The proposed rule includes a more stringent standard for emissions of filterable PM for coal-fired electric generating units, as well as a new mercury standard for lignite-fired electric generating units. The proposed rule also requires the installation and operation of continuous emissions monitors for PM. Management is evaluating the impacts of the rule as proposed. Managementproposed and will continue to monitor the rulemaking.

The Federal EPA’s CCR rule regulates the disposal and beneficial re-use of CCR, including fly ash and bottom ash created from coal-fired generating units and FGD gypsum generated at some coal-fired plants.  The rule applies to active and inactive CCR landfills and surface impoundments at facilities of active electric utility or independent power producers.

In 2020, the Federal EPA revised the CCR rule to include a requirement that unlined CCR storage ponds cease operations and initiate closure by April 11, 2021. The revised rule provides two options that allow facilities to extend the date by which they must cease receipt of coal ash and close the ponds.

The first option provides an extension to cease receipt of CCR no later than October 15, 2023 for most units, and October 15, 2024 for a narrow subset of units; however, the Federal EPA’s grant of such an extension will be based upon a satisfactory demonstration of the need for additional time to develop alternative ash disposal capacity and will be limited to the soonest timeframe technically feasible to cease receipt of CCR. Additionally, each request must undergo formal review, including public comments, and be approved by the Federal EPA. AEP filed applications for additional time to develop alternative disposal capacity at the following plants:

In January 2022, the Federal EPA proposed to deny several extension requests filed by the other utilities based on allegations that those utilities are not in compliance with the CCR Rule (the January Actions). In November 2022, the Federal EPA finalized one of these denials. The Federal EPA’s allegations of noncompliance rely on new interpretations of the CCR Rule requirements. The January Actions of the Federal EPA have been challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as unlawful rulemaking that revises the existing CCR Rule requirements without proper notice and without opportunity for comment. Management is unable to predict the outcome of that litigation.

In July 2022, the Federal EPA proposed conditional approval of the pending extension request for the Mountaineer Plant. The Federal EPA alleged that the Mountaineer Plant was not fully compliant with the CCR Rule. In December 2022, AEP withdrew the pending extension request for the Mountaineer Plant as work to construct new CCR disposal facilities was completed and the extension was no longer needed. The Federal EPA has not yet proposed any action on the other pending extension requests submitted by AEP. However, statements made by the Federal EPA in the context of the proposed and final decisions on extension requests issued to date indicate that there is a risk that the Federal EPA may conclude that AEP is not eligible for an extension of time to cease use of those CCR impoundments for which extension requests are pending and/or that one or more of AEP’s facilities is not in compliance with the CCR Rule. If that occurs, AEP may incur material additional costs to change its plans for complying with the CCR Rule, including the potential to have to temporarily cease operation of one or more facilities until an acceptable compliance alternative can be implemented. Such temporary cessation of operation could materially impact the cost of serving customers of the affected utility. Further actions by the Federal EPA could require AEP to remove coal ash from CCR units that have already been closed in accordance with state law programs or could require AEP to incur costs related to CCR units at various active and legacy facilities.

Closure and post-closure costs have been included in ARO in accordance with the requirements in the Federal EPA’s final CCR rule. Additional ARO revisions will occur on a site-by-site basis if groundwater monitoring activities conclude that corrective actions are required to mitigate groundwater impacts. AEP may incur significant additional costs complying with the Federal EPA’s CCR Rule, including costs to upgrade or close and replace surface impoundments and landfills used to manage CCR and to conduct any required remedial actions including removal of coal ash. If additional costs are incurred and AEP is unable to obtain cost recovery, it would reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. Management will continue to participate in rulemaking activities and make adjustments based on new federal and state requirements affecting its ash disposal units.

TheUnder the second option to obtainfor obtaining an extension of the April 11, 2021 deadline to cease operation of unlined impoundments, allows a generating facility tomay continue operating its existing impoundments without developing alternative CCR disposal, provided the facility commits to cease combustion of coal by a date certain. Under this option, a generating facility would have until October 17, 2023 to cease coal-fired operations and to close CCR storage ponds 40 acres or less in size, or through October 17, 2028 for facilities with CCR storage ponds greater than 40 acres in size. Pursuant to this option, AEP informed the Federal EPA of its intent to retire the Pirkey Plant and cease using coal at the Welsh Plant. In March 2023, the Pirkey Plant was retired. The table below summarizes the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 as of March 31,June 30, 2023.

To date, the Federal EPA has not taken any action on these pending extension requests. Under the second option above, AEP may need to recover remaining depreciation and estimated closure costs associated with these plants over a shorter period. If AEP cannot ultimately recover the costs of environmental compliance and/or the remaining depreciation and estimated closure costs associated with these plants in a timely manner, it would reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

The Federal EPA’s ELG rule for generating facilities establishes limits for FGD wastewater, fly ash and bottom ash transport water and flue gas mercury control wastewater, which are to be implemented through each facility’s wastewater discharge permit. A revision to the ELG rule, published in October 2020, established additional options for reusing and discharging small volumes of bottom ash transport water, provided an exception for retiring units and extended the compliance deadline to a date as soon as possible beginning one year after the rule was published but no later than December 2025. Management has assessed technology additions and retrofits to comply with the rule and the impacts of the Federal EPA’s actions on facilities’ wastewater discharge permitting for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water. For affected facilities that must install additional technologies to meet the ELG rule limits, permit modifications were filed in January 2021 that reflect the outcome of that assessment. AEP continues to work with state agencies to finalize permit terms and conditions. Other facilities opted to file Notices of Planned Participation (NOPP), pursuant to which the facilities are not required to install additional controls to meet ELG limits provided they make commitments to cease coal combustion by a date certain. In March

2023, the Federal EPA proposed further revisions to the ELG rule which, if finalized, would establish a zero discharge standard for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water, and more stringent discharge limits for combustion residual leachate. Management is evaluating the impacts of the proposed rule to operations. Management cannot predict whether the Federal EPA will actually finalize further revisions, but will continue to monitor this issue and will participate in further rulemaking activities as they arise.

In January 2023, the Federal EPA finalized a new rule revising the definition of “waters of the United States,” which became effective in March 2023. The new rule expands the scope of the definition, which means that permits may be necessary where none were previously required and issued permits may need to be reopened to impose additional obligations. A number of legal challenges in courts across the country have resulted in the rule being stayed in more than half of the states. Management is evaluating what impacts the revised rule will have on operations.

In October 2022,May 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard an appeal related toissued a decision that significantly narrowed the scope of “waters of the United States,” specifically which wetlands can be regulated as waters of the United States. In response, the Biden administration has announced plans to expeditiously issue a new rule defining “waters of the United States” consistent with the court decision. Management cannot predict the outcome of that litigation.will monitor developments related to such rulemaking.

Compliance with extensive environmental regulations requires significant capital investment in environmental monitoring, installation of pollution control equipment, emission fees, disposal, remediation and permits. Management continuously evaluates cost estimates of complying with these regulations which may result in a decision to retire coal-fired generating facilities earlier than their currently estimated useful lives.

The table below summarizes the net book value, as of March 31,June 30, 2023, of generating facilities retired or planned for early retirement in advance of the retirement date currently authorized for ratemaking purposes:

AEP’s primary business is the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity.  Within its Vertically Integrated Utilities segment, AEP centrally dispatches generation assets and manages its overall utility operations on an integrated basis because of the substantial impact of cost-based rates and regulatory oversight.  Intersegment sales and transfers are generally based on underlying contractual arrangements and agreements.

AEP’s reportable segments and their related business activities are outlined below:

The remainder of AEP’s activities are presented as Corporate and Other. While not considered a reportable segment, Corporate and Other primarily includes the purchasing of receivables from certain AEP utility subsidiaries, Parent’s guarantee revenue received from affiliates, investment income, interest income and interest expense, and other nonallocated costs.

The following discussion of AEP’s results of operations by operating segment includes an analysis of Gross Margin, which is a non-GAAP financial measure. Gross Margin includes Total Revenues less the costs of Fuel and Other Consumables Used for Electric Generation, as well as Purchased Electricity for Resale, as presented in the Registrants’ statements of income as applicable. Under the various state utility rate making processes, these expenses are generally reimbursable directly from and billed to customers. As a result, they do not typically impact Operating Income or Earnings Attributable to AEP Common Shareholders. Management believes that Gross Margin provides a useful measure for investors and other financial statement users to analyze AEP’s financial performance in that it excludes the effect on Total Revenues caused by volatility in these expenses. Operating Income, which is presented in accordance with GAAP in AEP’s statements of income, is the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure to the presentation of Gross Margin. AEP’s definition of Gross Margin may not be directly comparable to similarly titled financial measures used by other companies.

The following table presentstables present Earnings (Loss) Attributable to AEP Common Shareholders by segment: