American Electric Power (AEP) 10-Q2020 Q1 Quarterly report

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 2019 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 electric utility operating companies informed both retail customers and state regulators that disconnections for non-payment have been temporarily suspended. These uncertain economic conditions may result in the inability of customers to pay for electric service, which could affect the collectability of the Registrants’ revenues and adversely affect financial results. The Registrants are evaluating and working with their state regulatory commissions on potential rate recovery mechanisms for increased costs incurred due to COVID-19.  Certain Registrants received orders approving the deferral of certain incremental expenses associated with COVID-19. See Note 4 - Rate Matters for additional information. The Registrants have not observed a material change in their typical collections experience and thus did not materially adjust their allowances for uncollectible accounts as of March 31, 2020.

The effects of the continued outbreak of COVID-19 and related government responses could also include extended disruptions to supply chains and capital markets, reduced labor availability and a prolonged reduction in economic activity. These effects could have a variety of adverse impacts to the Registrants, including their ability to operate their facilities. As of March 31, 2020, there were no material adverse impacts to the Registrants’ operations due to COVID-19.

In addition, the economic disruptions caused by COVID-19 could also adversely impact the impairment risks for certain long-lived assets, equity method investments and goodwill. AEP evaluated these impairment considerations and determined that no such impairments occurred as of March 31, 2020.

During the first quarter of 2020, AEP increased its liquidity position to mitigate the risk of market volatility due to COVID-19. The Registrants’ access to funding was limited for a period of time during the first quarter and therefore AEP entered into a 364–day term loan to reduce reliance on commercial paper and help mitigate potential future liquidity risks. Specifically, for the first three months of 2020, AEP issued approximately $1.4 billion in long-term debt and $1.6 billion in short-term debt primarily via a 364-day term loan to enhance the Registrants’ available liquidity. As of March 31, 2020, AEP’s available liquidity is $2.8 billion. Management believes the Registrants have adequate liquidity under existing credit facilities. To the extent that future access to the capital markets or the cost of funding is adversely affected by COVID-19, the Registrants may need to consider alternative sources of funding for operations and working capital, which may adversely impact future results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

The effects of an extended disruption to the supply chains could disrupt or delay construction, testing, supervisory and support activities at renewable generation facilities, in particular, the North Central Wind Energy Facilities and the AEP Generation & Marketing segment’s Flat Ridge 3 wind project.  The in-service dates for the North Central Wind Energy Facilities are scheduled for end of year 2020 for one project, and end of year 2021 for the remaining two projects.  Under the terms of the Purchase and Sales Agreement, PSO and SWEPCo do not have an obligation to acquire the North Central Wind Energy Facility projects if the projects are not completed by the required in-service dates. The in-service date for the Flat Ridge 3 wind project is scheduled for end of the year 2020.  As of March 31, 2020, there has been no material adverse impacts to either the North Central Wind Energy Facility or the Flat Ridge 3 project. AEP currently expects the construction projects to be delivered on-time in accordance with the agreements with the developers. However, depending on the longevity and ultimate impact of COVID-19, future delays in the construction of AEP’s renewable assets could occur which could impact the current construction schedule, budget, and the qualification for federal PTC. AEP is working with industry groups on potential legislative and administrative relief for a PTC continuity safe harbor extension due to the ongoing impacts of COVID-19.

 

In March 2020, President Trump signed into law legislation referred to as the "Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act" (the CARES Act). The CARES Act includes tax relief provisions such as: (a) an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) Credit Refund, (b) a 5-year net operating losses (NOL) carryback from years 2018-2020 and (c) delayed payment of employer payroll taxes. As of March 31, 2020, AEP has a $20 million AMT credit refund recognized in anticipation of a refund from the U.S. Treasury. Management is evaluating the ability to recover taxes paid in 2014 under the 5-year NOL carryback provision. The Registrants currently expect to defer payments of the employer share of payroll taxes for the period March 27, 2020 through December 31, 2020 and pay 50% of the obligation by December 31, 2021 and the remaining 50% by December 31, 2022.

The Registrants are taking steps to mitigate the potential risks to customers, suppliers and employees posed by the spread of COVID-19. The Registrants have updated and implemented a company-wide pandemic plan to address specific aspects of the COVID-19. This plan guides emergency response, business continuity, and the precautionary measures AEP is taking on behalf of its employees and the public. The Registrants have taken extra precautions for employees who work in the field and for employees who work in their facilities, and have implemented work from home policies where appropriate. The Registrants will continue to monitor developments affecting both their workforce and customers, and will take additional precautions that management determines are necessary in order to mitigate the impacts. AEP continues to focus on providing safe, uninterrupted service to its customers, which includes the implementation of strong physical and cyber-security measures to ensure that its systems remain functional with a partially remote workforce. As of March 31, 2020, there has been no material adverse impact to the Registrants’ business operations and customer service due to remote work. Management will continue to review and modify plans as conditions change. Despite efforts to manage these impacts to the Registrants, the ultimate impact of COVID-19 also depends on factors beyond management’s knowledge or control, including the duration and severity of this outbreak as well as third-party actions taken to contain its spread and mitigate its public health effects. Therefore, management cannot estimate the potential future impact to financial position, results of operations and cash flows, but the impacts could be material.

AEP’s weather-normalized retail sales volumes for the first quarter of 2020 decreased by 0.7% from the first quarter of 2019. AEP’s first quarter 2020 industrial sales volumes decreased by 0.7% compared to the first quarter of 2019. The decline in industrial sales was spread across many industries. Weather-normalized residential sales decreased 1.2% while weather-normalized commercial sales were flat in the first quarter of 2020, from the first quarter of 2019.

Many businesses were forced to limit or reduce their operations in response to the COVID-19 outbreak over the last two weeks of the first quarter of 2020. While there is uncertainty regarding the duration and total impact that COVID-19 will have on AEP’s retail sales in 2020, AEP expects COVID-19 to have a larger impact in the second quarter of 2020 than it had in the first quarter.

As a result of the impact of COVID-19, AEP revised its forecast for 2020 weather-normalized retail sales volumes from the forecast presented in the 2019 10-K. In 2020, AEP currently anticipates weather-normalized retail sales volumes will decrease by 3.4%. AEP expects industrial class sales volumes to decrease by 8% in 2020, while weather-normalized residential sales volumes are projected to increase by 3%. Finally, AEP currently projects weather-normalized commercial sales volumes to decrease by 5.6%.

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 2020. See Note 4 - Rate Matters for additional information.

The growth of AEP’s 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.

AEP continues to develop its renewable portfolio within the Generation & Marketing segment.  Activities include working directly with wholesale and large retail customers to provide tailored solutions based upon market knowledge, technology innovations and deal structuring which may include distributed solar, wind, combined heat and power, energy storage, waste heat recovery, energy efficiency, peaking generation and other forms of cost reducing energy technologies.  The Generation & Marketing segment also develops and/or acquires large scale renewable generation projects that are backed with long-term contracts with creditworthy counterparties.

As of March 31, 2020, subsidiaries within AEP’s Generation & Marketing segment had approximately 1,423 MWs of contracted renewable generation projects in-service.  In addition, as of March 31, 2020, these subsidiaries had approximately 160 MWs of renewable generation projects under construction with total estimated capital costs of $235 million related to these projects.

In July 2019, PSO and SWEPCo submitted filings before their respective commissions for the approval to acquire the North Central Wind Energy Facilities, comprised of three Oklahoma wind facilities totaling 1,485 MWs, on a fixed cost turn-key basis at completion.  Subject to regulatory approval, PSO will own 45.5% and SWEPCo will own 54.5% of the project, which will cost approximately $2 billion.  Two wind facilities, totaling 1,286 MWs, would qualify for 80% of the federal PTC with year-end 2021 in-service dates.  The third wind facility (199 MWs) would qualify for 100% of the PTC with a year-end 2020 in-service date. The acquisition can be scaled, subject to commercial limitation,

to align with individual state resource needs and approvals. In December 2019, PSO reached a joint stipulation and settlement agreement with the OCC, Oklahoma Attorney General’s office and customer groups; the PSO agreement was approved by the Oklahoma Commission in February 2020. In January 2020, SWEPCo reached a joint settlement agreement with the APSC, Arkansas Attorney General’s office and Walmart, Inc. Hearings in the Texas proceeding took place in February 2020. In April 2020, SWEPCo reached a joint settlement agreement with Louisiana Staff, Walmart, Inc. and the Alliance for Affordable Energy. In May 2020, the Arkansas Commission approved the settlement agreement as filed, with the exception that SWEPCo use its formula rate rider to recover its costs rather than the requested rider.  SWEPCo is seeking regulatory approvals by July 2020.

In March 2020, management placed 10 hydroelectric generation plants under study for a potential sale. The table below shows the net book value of each plant, including CWIP and materials and supplies, before cost of removal of the plants included in the study.

If management decides to proceed with the sale of these plants, FERC approval would be required. In addition, for all plants, except for Racine, state commission approval would be required. Management currently estimates that any potential sale of these plants would not be completed until late 2020 at the earliest. There is no assurance that management will be able to sell any of these plants.

During the second quarter of 2019, the Dolet Hills Power Station initiated a seasonal operating schedule. In January 2020, in accordance with the terms of SWEPCo’s settlement of its base rate review filed with the APSC, management announced that SWEPCo will seek regulatory approval to retire the Dolet Hills Power Station by the end of 2026. DHLC provides 100% of the fuel supply to Dolet Hills Power Station. In March 2020, it was determined that DHLC would not proceed developing additional mining areas for future lignite extraction and management notified a substantial portion of its workforce that employment will permanently end in June 2020. Based on these actions, management has revised the estimated useful life of many of DHLC’s assets to June 2020 to coincide with the date at which extraction is expected to be discontinued. Management also revised the useful life of the Dolet Hills Power Station to September 2021 based on the remaining estimated fuel supply available for continued seasonal operation. In March 2020, primarily due to the revision in the useful life of DHLC, SWEPCo recorded a revision to increase estimated ARO liabilities by $21 million. In April 2020, SWEPCo and CLECO jointly filed a notification letter to the LPSC providing notice of the pending cessation of lignite mining in June 2020.

The Dolet Hills Power Station costs are recoverable by SWEPCo through base rates. SWEPCo’s share of the net investment in the Dolet Hills Power Station is $151 million, including CWIP and materials and supplies, before cost of removal.

Fuel costs incurred by the Dolet Hills Power Station are recoverable by SWEPCo through active fuel clauses. Under the Lignite Mining Agreement, DHLC bills SWEPCo its proportionate share of incurred lignite extraction and associated mining-related costs as fuel is delivered. As of March 31, 2020, DHLC has unbilled lignite inventory and fixed costs of $124 million that will be billed to SWEPCo prior to the closure of the Dolet Hills Power Station. In 2009, SWEPCo acquired interests in the Oxbow Lignite Company (Oxbow), which owns mineral rights and leases land. Under a Joint Operating Agreement pertaining to the Oxbow mineral rights and land leases, Oxbow bills SWEPCo its proportionate share of incurred costs. As of March 31, 2020, Oxbow has unbilled fixed costs of $26 million that will be billed to SWEPCo prior to the closure of the Dolet Hills Power Station. Additional operational and land-related costs are expected to be incurred by DHLC and Oxbow and billed to SWEPCo prior to the closure of the Dolet Hills Power Station and recovered through fuel clauses.

If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

In November 2019, the FERC issued Opinion No. 569, which adopted a revised methodology for determining whether an existing base ROE is just and reasonable under Federal Power Act and determined the base ROE for MISO’s transmission-owning members should be reduced to 9.88% (10.38% inclusive of RTO incentive adder of 0.5%). The revised ROE methodology relies on two financial models, which include the discounted cash flow model and the capital asset pricing model, to establish a composite zone of reasonableness. In December 2019, AEP filed multiple requests for rehearing and participated in filing comments and requests for rehearing on behalf of transmission owners and industry organizations. Management believes FERC Opinion No. 569 reverses the expectation of a four-model framework proposed by FERC in 2018 and vetted widely in FERC 2019 Notice of Inquiry regarding base ROE policy. Management does not believe this ruling will have a material impact on financial results for its MISO transmission owning subsidiaries. In the second quarter of 2019, FERC approved settlement agreements establishing base ROEs of 9.85% (10.35% inclusive of RTO incentive adder of 0.5%) and 10% (10.5% inclusive of RTO incentive adder of 0.5%) for AEP’s PJM and SPP transmission-owning subsidiaries, respectively. In March 2020, as a follow-up to its 2019 Notice of Inquiry regarding transmission incentives policy, FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and requested comments by July 2020. AEP will file comments and monitor this proceeding. If FERC makes any changes to its ROE and incentive policies, they would be applied to AEP’s PJM and SPP transmission owning subsidiaries on a prospective basis, and could affect 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 2013, the Wilmington Trust Company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against AEGCo and I&M alleging that it would be unlawfully burdened by the terms of the modified NSR consent decree after the Rockport Plant, Unit 2 lease expiration in December 2022.  The terms of the consent decree allow the installation of environmental emission control equipment, repowering, refueling or retirement of the unit.  The plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring that the defendants breached the lease, must satisfy obligations related to installation of emission control equipment and indemnify the plaintiffs.  The New York court granted a motion to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

AEGCo and I&M sought and were granted dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio of certain of the plaintiffs’ claims, including claims for compensatory damages, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and indemnification of costs. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the surviving

claims that AEGCo and I&M failed to exercise prudent utility practices with prejudice, and the court issued a final judgment. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion and judgment affirming the district court’s dismissal of the owners’ breach of good faith and fair dealing claim as duplicative of the breach of contract claims, reversing the district court’s dismissal of the breach of contract claims and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Thereafter, AEP filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the original NSR litigation, seeking to modify the consent decree. The district court granted the owners’ unopposed motion to stay the lease litigation to afford time for resolution of AEP’s motion to modify the consent decree. The consent decree was modified based on an agreement among the parties in July 2019. The district court entered a stay that expired in February 2020. Settlement negotiations are continuing, and the parties filed a joint proposed case schedule in February 2020. See “Modification of the NSR Litigation Consent Decree” section below for additional information.

Management will continue to defend against the claims. Given that the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims seeking compensatory relief as premature, and that plaintiffs have yet to present a methodology for determining or any analysis supporting any alleged damages, management cannot determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring.

In July 2019, Midwest Energy Emissions Corporation and MES Inc. (collectively, the plaintiffs) filed a patent infringement complaint against various parties, including AEP Texas, AGR, Cardinal Operating Company and SWEPCo (collectively, the AEP Defendants). The complaint alleges that the AEP Defendants infringed two patents owned by the plaintiffs by using specific processes for mercury control at certain coal-fired generating stations.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages.  Management will continue to defend against the claims. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring.

The American Electric Power System Retirement Plan (the Plan) has received a letter written on behalf of four participants (the Claimants) making a claim for additional plan benefits and purporting to advance such claims on behalf of a class. When the Plan’s benefit formula was changed in the year 2000, AEP provided a special provision for employees hired before January 1, 2001, allowing them to continue benefit accruals under the then benefit formula for a full 10 years alongside of the new cash balance benefit formula then being implemented.  Employees who were hired on or after January 1, 2001 accrued benefits only under the new cash balance benefit formula.  The Claimants have asserted claims that (a) the Plan violates the requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) intended to preclude back-loading the accrual of benefits to the end of a participant’s career; (b) the Plan violates the age discrimination prohibitions of ERISA and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); and (c) the company failed to provide required notice regarding the changes to the Plan.  AEP has responded to the Claimants providing a reasoned explanation for why each of their claims have been denied, and the denial to those claims have been appealed to the AEP System Retirement Plan Appeal Committee.  Management will continue to defend against the claims.  Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that are 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, rules governing the beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion by-products, clean water rules 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.  AEP, along with other parties, challenged some of the Federal EPA requirements.  Management is engaged in the development of possible future requirements including the items discussed below.  Management believes that further analysis and

better coordination of these environmental requirements would facilitate planning and lower overall compliance costs while achieving the same environmental goals.

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 a material 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, 2020, the AEP System had generating capacity of approximately 25,500 MWs, of which approximately 13,200 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. Based upon management estimates, AEP’s future investment to meet these existing and proposed requirements ranges from approximately $500 million to $1 billion through 2026.

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 and (g) other factors.  In addition, management continues to evaluate the economic feasibility of environmental investments on regulated and competitive plants.

The table below represents the net book value before cost of removal, including related materials and supplies inventory, of plants or units of plants previously retired that have a remaining net book value as of March 31, 2020.

Management is seeking or will seek recovery of the remaining net book value in future rate proceedings. To the extent the net book value of these generation assets is not recoverable, it could materially reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

In 2017, AEP filed a motion with the district court seeking to modify the consent decree to eliminate an obligation to install future controls at Rockport Plant, Unit 2 if AEP does not acquire ownership of that unit, and to modify the consent decree in other respects to preserve the environmental benefits of the consent decree.  The other parties to the consent decree opposed AEP’s motion. The district court granted AEP’s request to delay the deadline to install Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology at Rockport Plant, Unit 2 until June 2020.

In April 2020, an employee at the Rockport Plant was diagnosed with COVID-19. Several contract workers stopped working on the SCR project at Rockport Unit 2, and the project workforce reported an increased rate of absenteeism. I&M has notified the parties to the consent decree of this force majeure event and estimates that the date for completion of the SCR and DSI projects will be extended by approximately two weeks past the June 1, 2020 deadline. Management will continue to oversee the project through completion in light of these challenges.

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 any 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 finalized non-attainment designations for the 2015 ozone standard in 2018. The Federal EPA confirmed that for states included in the CSAPR program, there are no additional interstate transport obligations, as all areas of the country are expected to attain the 2008 ozone standard before 2023. Challenges to the 2015 ozone standard and the Federal EPA’s determination that CSAPR satisfies certain states’ interstate transport obligations were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In August 2019, the court upheld the 2015 primary ozone standard, but remanded the secondary welfare-based standard for further review. The court vacated the Federal EPA’s determination that CSAPR fulfilled the states’ interstate transport obligations, because the Federal EPA’s modeling analysis did not demonstrate that all significant contributions would be eliminated by the attainment deadlines for downwind states. Any further changes will require additional rulemaking. Management cannot currently predict the nature, stringency or timing of additional requirements for AEP’s facilities based on the outcome of these activities.

The Federal EPA issued a Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR), detailing how the CAA’s requirement that certain facilities install best available retrofit technology (BART) would address regional haze in federal parks and other protected areas.  BART requirements apply to certain power plants.  CAVR will be implemented through SIPs or FIPs.  In 2017, the Federal EPA revised the rules governing submission of SIPs to implement the visibility programs, including a provision that postpones 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.

The Federal EPA initially disapproved portions of the Arkansas regional haze SIP, but has approved a revised SIP and all of SWEPCo's affected units are in compliance with the relevant requirements.

In 2016, the Federal EPA issued a final rule, the CSAPR Update, to address the remand and to incorporate additional changes necessary to address the 2008 ozone standard. The CSAPR Update significantly reduced ozone season budgets in many states and discounted the value of banked CSAPR ozone season allowances beginning with the 2017 ozone season. In 2019, the appeals court remanded the CSAPR Update to the Federal EPA because it determined the Federal EPA had not properly considered the attainment dates for downwind areas in establishing its partial remedy, and should have considered whether there were available measures to control emissions from sources other than generating units. Any further changes to the CSAPR rule will require additional rulemaking.

In 2012, the Federal EPA issued a rule addressing a broad range of HAPs from coal and oil-fired power plants.  The rule established unit-specific emission rates for units burning coal on a 30-day rolling average basis for mercury, PM (as a surrogate for particles of non-mercury metals) and hydrogen chloride (as a surrogate for acid gases).  In addition, the rule proposed work practice standards for controlling emissions of organic HAPs and dioxin/furans, with compliance required within three years. Management obtained administrative extensions for up to one year at several units to facilitate the installation of controls or to avoid a serious reliability problem.

In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied all of the petitions for review of the 2012 final rule. Various intervenors filed petitions for further review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court remanded the MATS rule to the Federal EPA to consider costs in determining whether to regulate emissions of HAPs from power plants. In 2016, the Federal EPA issued a supplemental finding concluding that, after considering the costs of compliance, it was appropriate and necessary to regulate HAP emissions from coal and oil-fired units. Petitions for review of the Federal EPA’s determination were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 2018, the Federal EPA released a revised finding that the costs of reducing HAP emissions to the level in the current rule exceed the benefits of those HAP emission reductions. The Federal EPA also determined that there are no significant changes in control technologies and the remaining risks associated with HAP emissions do not justify any more stringent standards. Therefore, the Federal EPA proposed to retain the current MATS standards without change. In April 2020, the Federal EPA released a final rule adopting the conclusions set forth in the proposal and retaining the existing MATS standards.

In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the final CPP, including all of the deadlines for submission of initial or final state plans 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. In 2017, the President issued an Executive Order directing the Federal EPA to reconsider the CPP and the associated standards for new sources. The Federal EPA filed a motion to hold the challenges to the CPP in abeyance pending reconsideration. In September 2019, following the Federal EPA’s repeal of the CPP and promulgation of a replacement rule, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the challenges.

In 2018, the Federal EPA filed a proposed rule revising the standards for new sources and determined that partial carbon capture and storage is not the best system of emission reduction because it is not available throughout the U.S. and is not cost-effective. Management continues to actively monitor these rulemaking activities.

In 2015, the Federal EPA published a final rule to regulate 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 CCR landfills and surface impoundments at operating electric utility or independent generation facilities. The rule imposes construction and operating obligations, including location restrictions, liner criteria, structural integrity requirements for impoundments, operating criteria and additional groundwater monitoring requirements to be implemented on a schedule spanning an approximate four-year implementation period. In 2018, some of AEP’s facilities were required to begin monitoring programs to determine if unacceptable groundwater impacts will trigger future corrective measures. Based on additional groundwater data, further studies to design and assess appropriate corrective measures have been undertaken at four facilities.

In a challenge to the final 2015 rule, the parties initially agreed to settle some of the issues.  In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit addressed or dismissed the remaining issues in its decision vacating and remanding certain provisions of the 2015 rule.  The provisions addressed by the court’s decision, including changes to the provisions for unlined impoundments and legacy sites, will be the subject of further rulemaking consistent with the court’s decision.

Prior to the court’s decision, the Federal EPA issued the July 2018 rule that modifies certain compliance deadlines and other requirements in the 2015 rule.  In December 2018, challengers filed a motion for partial stay or vacatur of the July 2018 rule. On the same day, the Federal EPA filed a motion for partial remand of the July 2018 rule. The court granted the Federal EPA’s motion. In November 2019, the Federal EPA proposed revisions to implement the court’s decision regarding the timing for closure of unlined surface impoundments along with impoundments not meeting the required distance from an aquifer. The comment period closed in January 2020. In December 2019, the Federal EPA proposed a federal permit program, implementing the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, that would apply in states that do not have an approved CCR program.

Other utilities and industrial sources have been engaged in litigation with environmental advocacy groups who claim that releases of contaminants from wells, CCR units, pipelines and other facilities to groundwaters that have a hydrologic connection to a surface water body represent an “unpermitted discharge” under the CWA. Two cases were accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court for further review of the scope of CWA jurisdiction. In April 2020, the Supreme Court issued an opinion remanding one of these cases to the Ninth Circuit based on its determination that discharges from an injection well that make their way to the Pacific Ocean through ground water may require a permit if the distance traveled through ground water, length of time to reach the surface water and other factors make it “functionally equivalent” to a direct discharge from a point source. The second case was also remanded to the lower court. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, the Federal EPA opened a rulemaking docket to solicit information to determine whether it should provide additional clarification of the scope of CWA permitting requirements for discharges to groundwater, and issued an interpretive statement finding that discharges to groundwater are not subject to NPDES

permitting requirements under the CWA. Management is unable to predict the impact of these developments on AEP’s facilities.

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 and conduct any required remedial actions. Closure and post-closure costs have been included in ARO in accordance with the requirements in the final 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, which could include costs to remove ash from some unlined units.

In March 2020, Virginia’s Governor signed House Bill 443 (HB 443) requiring APCo to close ash disposal units at the retired Glen Lyn Station by removal of all coal combustion material.  APCo’s current ARO for these units is based on closure in place and will require future revision to reflect the costs of closure by removal.  As of March 31, 2020, APCo is unable to reasonably estimate this cost.  Management expects to record a material revision to the ARO after engineering plans for the removal are developed later in 2020.  The closure is required to be completed within 15 years from the start of the excavation process.  HB 443 provides for the recovery of all costs associated with closure by removal through the Virginia environmental rate adjustment clause (E-RAC).  APCo may begin deferring incurred costs on July 1, 2020 and recovering these costs through the E-RAC beginning July 1, 2022.  APCo is permitted to record carrying costs on the unrecovered balance of closure costs at a weighted average cost of capital approved by the Virginia SCC.  HB 443 also allows any closure costs allocated to non-Virginia jurisdictional customers, but not collected from such non-Virginia jurisdictional customers, to be recovered from Virginia jurisdictional customers through the E-RAC.  Management does not expect HB 443 to materially impact results of operations or cash flows, but does anticipate a material impact to APCo’s balance sheet.

If removal of ash is required without providing similar assurances of cost recovery in regulated jurisdictions, it would impose significant additional operating costs on AEP, which could lead to increased financing costs and liquidity needs. Other units in Virginia, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky already have been closed in place in accordance with state law programs. Management will continue to participate in rulemaking activities and make adjustments based on new federal and state requirements affecting its ash disposal units.

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 impinged or entrained in the cooling water.  The rule was upheld on review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Compliance timeframes are established by the permit agency through each facility’s NPDES permit as those permits are renewed and have been incorporated into permits at several AEP facilities. Additional AEP facilities are reviewing these requirements as their wastewater discharge permits are renewed and making appropriate adjustments to their intake structures.

In 2015, the Federal EPA issued a final rule revising effluent limitation guidelines for generating facilities. The rule established limits on FGD wastewater, fly ash and bottom ash transport water and flue gas mercury control wastewater to be imposed as soon as possible after November 2018 and no later than December 2023. These requirements would be implemented through each facility’s wastewater discharge permit. The rule was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In 2017, the Federal EPA announced its intent to reconsider and potentially revise the standards for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water. The Federal EPA postponed the compliance deadlines for those wastewater categories to be no earlier than 2020, to allow for reconsideration. In April 2019, the Fifth Circuit vacated the standards for landfill leachate and legacy wastewater, and remanded them to the Federal EPA for reconsideration.  In November 2019, the Federal EPA proposed revisions to the guidelines for existing generation facilities. The comment period ended in January 2020. Management is assessing technology additions and retrofits to comply with the rule and the impacts of the Federal EPA’s recent actions on facilities’ wastewater discharge permitting.

In 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. Various parties challenged the 2015 rule in different U.S. District Courts, which resulted in a patchwork of applicability of the 2015

rule and its predecessor. In December 2018, the Federal EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed a replacement rule. In September 2019, the Federal EPA repealed the 2015 rule. The final replacement rule was published in the Federal Register in April 2020 and will become effective in June 2020. The final rule limits the scope of CWA jurisdiction to four categories of waters, and clarifies exclusions for ground water, ephemeral streams, artificial ponds and waste treatment systems.

In April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana issued a decision vacating the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) General Nationwide Permit 12 (NWP 12), which provides standard conditions governing linear utility projects in streams, wetlands and other waters of the United States having minimal adverse environmental impacts. The Court found that in reissuing NWP 12 in 2017, the Corps failed to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which requires the Corps to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential impacts on endangered species. The Court remanded the permit back to the Corps to complete its ESA consultation, and also enjoined the Corps from authorizing any dredge or fill activities under NWP 12 pending completion of the consultation process. The Department of Justice filed a motion to stay the injunction and tailor the remedy imposed by the Court, and the court ordered the parties to file briefs on the issue in May 2020. Management is monitoring the litigation and evaluating other permitting alternatives, but is currently unable to predict the impact of this decision on current and planned projects.

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 and Amortization of Generation Deferrals 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 presents Earnings (Loss) Attributable to AEP Common Shareholders by segment:

Earnings Attributable to AEP Common Shareholders decreased from $573 million in 2019 to $495 million in 2020 to primarily due to:

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 increase 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:

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

The major components of the increase in transmission revenues, which consists of wholesale sales to affiliates and nonaffiliates, were as follows:

Expenses and Other, Income Tax Expense and Equity Earnings of Unconsolidated Subsidiary changed between years as follows:

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

Expenses and Other, Income Tax Benefit and Equity Earnings of Unconsolidated Subsidiaries changed between years as follows:

Earnings Attributable to AEP Common Shareholders from Corporate and Other increased from a loss of $50 million in 2019 to a loss of $35 million in 2020 primarily due to:

Income Tax Expense increased $2 million primarily due to a decrease in amortization of Excess ADIT. This increase is partially offset by a decrease in pretax book income and an increase in PTC.

AEP measures financial condition by the strength of its balance sheet and the liquidity provided by its cash flows.

AEP’s ratio of debt-to-total capital increased from 59.8% as of December 31, 2019 to 61.8% as of March 31, 2020 primarily due to an increase in short-term debt to enhance liquidity as a result of volatility in the capital markets.

Liquidity, or access to cash, is an important factor in determining AEP’s financial stability.  Management believes AEP has adequate liquidity under its existing credit facilities.  As of March 31, 2020, AEP had a $4 billion revolving credit facility to support its commercial paper program.  Additional liquidity is available from cash from operations and a receivables securitization agreement.  Management is committed to maintaining adequate liquidity.  AEP generally uses short-term borrowings to fund working capital needs, property acquisitions and construction until long-term funding is arranged.  Sources of long-term funding include issuance of long-term debt, leasing agreements, hybrid securities or common stock. There was increased volatility in the capital markets during the first quarter of 2020

resulting in higher commercial paper cost and limited access. To address these issues and the uncertainty around COVID-19, in March 2020, AEP entered into a $1 billion 364-day Term Loan and borrowed the full amount.

AEP manages liquidity by maintaining adequate external financing commitments.  As of March 31, 2020, available liquidity was approximately $2.8 billion as illustrated in the table below:

AEP uses its commercial paper program to meet the short-term borrowing needs of its subsidiaries.  The program funds a Utility Money Pool, which funds AEP’s utility subsidiaries; a Nonutility Money Pool, which funds certain AEP nonutility subsidiaries; and the short-term debt requirements of subsidiaries that are not participating in either money pool for regulatory or operational reasons, as direct borrowers.  The maximum amount of commercial paper outstanding during the first three months of 2020 was $3 billion.  The weighted-average interest rate for AEP’s commercial paper during 2020 was 2.06%.

AEP’s receivables securitization agreement provides a commitment of $750 million from bank conduits to purchase receivables and expires in July 2021.

The revolving credit facility does not permit the lenders to refuse a draw on any facility if a material adverse change occurs.

Utility Money Pool borrowings and external borrowings may not exceed amounts authorized by regulatory orders and AEP manages its borrowings to stay within those authorized limits.

In March 2019, AEP issued 16.1 million Equity Units initially in the form of corporate units, at a stated amount of $50 per unit, for a total stated amount of $805 million. Net proceeds from the issuance were approximately $785 million. Each corporate unit represents a 1/20 undivided beneficial ownership interest in $1,000 principal amount of AEP’s 3.40% Junior Subordinated Notes due in 2024 and a forward equity purchase contract which settles after three years in 2022. The proceeds from this issuance were used to support AEP’s overall capital expenditure plans including the acquisition of Sempra Renewables LLC. See Note 12 - Financing Activities for additional information.

The Board of Directors declared a quarterly dividend of $0.70 per share in April 2020. Future dividends may vary depending upon AEP’s profit levels, operating cash flow levels and capital requirements, as well as financial and other business conditions existing at the time. Parent’s income primarily derives from common stock equity in the earnings of its utility subsidiaries. Various financing arrangements and regulatory requirements may impose certain restrictions on the ability of the subsidiaries to transfer funds to Parent in the form of dividends. Management does not believe these restrictions will have any significant impact on its ability to access cash to meet the payment of dividends on its common stock. See “Dividend Restrictions” section of Note 12 for additional information.

AEP and its utility subsidiaries do not have any credit arrangements that would require material changes in payment schedules or terminations as a result of a credit downgrade, but its access to the commercial paper market may depend on its credit ratings.  In addition, downgrades in AEP’s credit ratings by one of the rating agencies could increase its borrowing costs.  Counterparty concerns about the credit quality of AEP or its utility subsidiaries could subject AEP to additional collateral demands under adequate assurance clauses under its derivative and non-derivative energy contracts.

AEP relies primarily on cash flows from operations, debt issuances and its existing cash and cash equivalents to fund its liquidity and investing activities. AEP’s investing and capital requirements are primarily capital expenditures, repaying of long-term debt and paying dividends to shareholders. AEP uses short-term debt, including commercial paper, as a bridge to long-term debt financing. The levels of borrowing may vary significantly due to the timing of long-term debt financings and the impact of fluctuations in cash flows.

 

 

 

 

See “Long-term Debt Subsequent Events” section of Note 12 for Long-term debt and other securities issued, retired and principal payments made after March 31, 2020 through May 6, 2020, the date that the first quarter 10-Q was issued.

Management currently estimates $5.8 billion of capital expenditures for 2020 and forecasts approximately $32.9 billion of capital expenditures for 2020 to 2024.  Capital expenditures related to North Central Wind Energy Facilities are excluded from these budgeted amounts. The expenditures are generally for transmission, generation, distribution, regulated and contracted renewables, and required environmental investment to comply with the Federal EPA rules.  Estimated capital expenditures are subject to periodic review and modification and may vary based on the ongoing effects of regulatory constraints, environmental regulations, business opportunities, market volatility, economic trends, weather, legal reviews and the ability to access capital.  Management expects to fund these capital expenditures through cash flows from operations and financing activities.  Generally, the Registrant Subsidiaries use cash or short-term borrowings under the money pool to fund these expenditures until long-term funding is arranged. For complete information of forecasted capital expenditures, see the “Budgeted Capital Expenditures” section of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in the 2019 Annual Report.

A summary of contractual obligations is included in the 2019 Annual Report and has not changed significantly from year-end other than the debt issuances and retirements discussed in the “Cash Flow” section above.

See the “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” section of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in the 2019 Annual Report for a discussion of the estimates and judgments required for regulatory accounting, revenue recognition, derivative instruments, the valuation of long-lived assets, the accounting for pension and other postretirement benefits and the impact of new accounting standards.

See Note 2 - New Accounting Standards for information related to accounting standards adopted in 2020 and standards effective in the future.

The Vertically Integrated Utilities segment is exposed to certain market risks as a major power producer and through transactions in power, coal, natural gas and marketing contracts. These risks include commodity price risks which may be subject to capacity risk, credit risk as well as interest rate risk. These risks represent the risk of loss that may impact this segment due to changes in the underlying market prices or rates.

The Transmission and Distribution Utilities segment is exposed to energy procurement risk and interest rate risk.

The Generation & Marketing segment conducts marketing, risk management and retail activities in ERCOT, PJM, SPP and MISO. This segment is exposed to certain market risks as a marketer of wholesale and retail electricity. These risks include commodity price risks which may be subject to capacity risk, credit risk as well as interest rate risk. These risks represent the risk of loss that may impact this segment due to changes in the underlying market prices or rates. In addition, the Generation & Marketing segment is also exposed to certain market risks as a power producer and through transactions in wholesale electricity, natural gas and marketing contracts.

Management employs risk management contracts including physical forward and financial forward purchase-and-sale contracts.  Management engages in risk management of power, capacity, coal, natural gas and, to a lesser extent, heating oil, gasoline and other commodity contracts to manage the risk associated with the energy business.  As a result, AEP is subject to price risk.  The amount of risk taken is determined by the Commercial Operations, Energy Supply and Finance groups in accordance with established risk management policies as approved by the Finance Committee of the Board of Directors.  AEPSC’s market risk oversight staff independently monitors risk policies, procedures and risk levels and provides members of the Commercial Operations Risk Committee (Regulated Risk Committee) and the Energy Supply Risk Committee (Competitive Risk Committee) various reports regarding compliance with policies, limits and procedures.  The Regulated Risk Committee consists of AEPSC’s Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President of Generation, Executive Vice President of Utilities, Senior Vice President of Commercial Operations, Senior Vice President of Treasury and Risk and Chief Risk Officer.  The Competitive Risk Committee consists of AEPSC’s Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President of Treasury and Risk and Chief Risk Officer in addition to Energy Supply’s President and Vice President.  When commercial activities exceed predetermined limits, positions are modified to reduce the risk to be within the limits unless specifically approved by the respective committee.

The effects of COVID-19 may adversely impact AEP’s risk management contracts on a forward basis. Markets could experience reduced market liquidity as they face potential uncertainties. Credit risk may increase as counterparties encounter business and supply chain disruptions and overall solvency challenges. Also, interest rates could continue to see increased volatility as capital markets confront uncertainty.