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 20152016 Annual Report, but there are others throughout this document which may be identified by words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “project,” “continue” and similar expressions, and include statements reflecting future results or guidance and statements of outlook.  These matters are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected.  Forward-looking statements in this document are presented as of the date of this document.  Except to the extent required by applicable law, management undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement.  Among the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements are:

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

AEP’s weather-normalized retail sales volumes for the secondfirst quarter of 2017 decreased by 1.2% from the first quarter of 2016, decreased by 0.4% from the secondpartially due to 2016 being a leap year and including one additional day in comparison to 2017. AEP’s first quarter of 2015. AEP’s second quarter 20162017 industrial sales decreased 4.0%0.2% compared to the secondfirst quarter of 2015 primarily due to decreased2016. The results were mixed by industry despite growth in sales to customers in the manufacturing sector. Weather-normalized commercialoil and residential sales increased by 1.0% and 2.4% in the second quarter of 2016, respectively, from the second quarter of 2015.

In MarchSeptember 2016, AEP signed an agreement to sell Darby, Gavin, Lawrenceburg and Waterford Plants (“Disposition Plants”) totaling 5,329 MWs of competitive generation to a contested stipulation agreement relatednonaffiliated party. The sale closed in January 2017 for approximately $2.2 billion. The net proceeds from the transaction were approximately $1.2 billion in cash after taxes, repayment of debt associated with these assets and transaction fees, which resulted in an after tax gain of approximately $127 million. AEP primarily used these proceeds to the PPA rider application was modifiedreduce outstanding debt and approved by the PUCO. The approved PPA rider is effective April 2016 through May 2024, with quarterly PPA rider reconciliations to actual PPA costs compared to PJM market revenues, subject to auditinvest in its regulated businesses including transmission, and review by the PUCO. The stipulation agreement, as approved, included:

In March 2016, a groupThe assets and liabilities included in the sale transaction have been recorded as Assets Held for Sale and Liabilities Held for Sale, respectively, on the balance sheet as of merchant generation owners filed a complaint at the FERC against PJM seeking revisions to the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) in PJM’s tariff. Although the complaint requested the FERC act in advanceDecember 31, 2016. See “Assets and Liabilities Held for Sale” section of the May 2016 Base Residual AuctionNote 6 for the 2019/2020 delivery year, the complaint is still pending without a decision from the FERC. If approved as proposed, the revised MOPR could affect future bidding behavior for units with cost recovery mechanisms.

Management seekscontinues to maintain, subject to requested modifications, the commitments approved as part of the original PPA order despite the fact that the proposed affiliate PPA is no longer included following the FERC’s order rescinding the waiver of affiliate rules. OPCo has the option to exercise its right to withdraw from the PPA stipulation at any time.

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

The APSC granted approval for SWEPCo to build the Turk Plant by issuing a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (CECPN) for the SWEPCo Arkansas jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant (approximately 20%). Following an appeal by certain intervenors, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a decision that reversed the APSC’s grant of the CECPN. In June 2010, in response to an Arkansas Supreme Court decision, the APSC issued an order which reversed and set aside the previously granted CECPN. This share of the Turk Plant output is currently not subject to cost-based rate recovery and is being sold into the wholesale market. Approximately 80% of the Turk Plant investment is recovered under cost-based rate recovery in Texas, Louisiana (subject to prudence review) and through SWEPCo’s wholesale customers under FERC-based rates. As of March 31, 2017, the net book value of Turk Plant was $1.5 billion, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP. 

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

OPCo expects to submit its 2016 SEET filing in the second quarter of 2017.  OPCo’s 2016 SEET provision was determined by excluding the gain on the deferral of RSR costs related to the Global Settlement. In 2012, SWEPCo initiatedaddition, refunds to customers included in the Global Settlement relating to the SEET remands and fuel adjustment clause proceedings were excluded from the determination of the 2016 SEET provision. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of 2016 SEET requirements.  If the PUCO adopts a proceedingdifferent 2016 SEET methodology, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Beginning January 2013, SWEPCo’s formula rates, including the Louisiana jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant. In February 2013, a settlement was approved by the LPSC that increased SWEPCo’s Louisiana total rates by approximately $2 million annually, effective March 2013. The March 2013 base rates are based upon a 10% return on common equity and cost recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share(approximately 29%) of the Turk Plant, and Stall Unit,have been collected subject to refund. The settlement also provided thatrefund pending the LPSC wouldoutcome of a prudence review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo would recover non-fuel Turk Plant costs and a full weighted-average cost

A hearing at the LPSC related to the Turk Plant prudence review is scheduled for November 2016.September 2017. If the LPSC orders refunds based upon the pending prudence review of the Turk Plant investment, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. See

In October 2016, several parties filed a joint complaint with the “2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing” sectionFERC that states the base return on common equity used by various AEP affiliates in calculating formula transmission rates under the PJM OATT is excessive and should be reduced from 10.99% to 8.32%, effective upon the date of Note 4.the complaint. Management believes its financial statements adequately address the impact of the complaint. If the FERC orders revenue reductions as a result of the complaint, including refunds from the date of the complaint filing, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

In April 2016, Welsh Plant, Unit 2 was retired. Upon retirement, $76as approved by the APSC, SWEPCo began recovering $79 million was reclassified as Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet related to the net book value of Welsh Plant, Unit 2 and the related asset retirement obligation costs. Management will seek recovery of the remaining regulatory assets in future rate proceedings.

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

In March 2016, APCo2017, Westinghouse filed a petition to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code.  It intends to reorganize, not cease business operations. However, it is in the early stages of the bankruptcy process and WPCo filedit is unclear whether the company can successfully reorganize.  Westinghouse and I&M have a number of significant ongoing contracts relating to reactor services, nuclear fuel fabrication, and ongoing engineering projects.  The most significant of these relate to Cook Plant fuel fabrication.  I&M is evaluating how this reorganization affects these contracts.  Westinghouse has stated that it intends to continue performance on I&M’s contracts, but given the importance of upcoming dates in the fuel fabrication process for Cook Plant, and their combined annual ENECvital part in Cook Plant’s ongoing operations, I&M has approached Westinghouse and expects to make a filing with the WVPSC.bankruptcy court to seek to avoid any interruptions to that service.  In June 2016, APCo, WPCo and intervenors filed a settlement agreement with the WVPSC. The proposed settlement included $38 million of additional ENEC revenues and $17 millionunlikely event Westinghouse rejects I&M’s contracts, or is unable to reorganize or sell its profitable businesses in construction surcharges annually for two years, effective July 2016. Additionally, APCo and WPCo agreed that a general rate case will not be filed before April 2018. In June 2016, the WVPSC approved the settlement agreement. See the “2016 West Virginia Expanded Net Energy Charge Filing” section of Note 4.

In the ordinary course of business, AEP is involved in employment, commercial, environmental and regulatory litigation. Since it is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, management cannot predict the eventual resolution, timing or amount of any loss, fine or penalty. Management assesses the probability of loss for each contingency and accrues a liability for cases that have a probable likelihood of loss if the loss can be estimated. For details on the regulatory proceedings and pending litigation see Note 4 - Rate Matters, Note 6 - Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies and the “Litigation” section of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in the 20152016 Annual Report. Additionally, see Note 4 - Rate Matters and Note 5 - Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies included herein. Adverse results in these proceedings have the potential to reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

In July 2013, the Wilmington Trust Company filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against AEGCo and I&M alleging that it will be unlawfully burdened by the terms of the modified NSR consent decree after the Rockport Plant, Unit 2 lease expiration in December 2022.  The terms of the consent decree allow the installation of environmental emission control equipment, repowering or retirement of the unit.  The plaintiffplaintiffs further allegesallege that the defendants’ actions constitute breach of the lease and participation agreement.  The plaintiff seeksplaintiffs seek a judgment declaring that the defendants breached the lease, must satisfy obligations related to installation of emission control equipment and indemnify the plaintiff.plaintiffs.  The New York court granted a motion to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  In October 2013, a motion to dismiss the case was filed on behalf of AEGCo and I&M. In January 2015, the court issued an opinion and order granting the motion in part and denying the motion in part. The court dismissed certain of the plaintiff’s claims.plaintiffs’ claims, including the dismissal without prejudice of plaintiffs’ claims seeking compensatory damages. Several claims remained, including the claim for breach of the participation agreement and a claim alleging breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In June 2015, AEGCo and I&M filed a motion for partial judgment on the claims seeking dismissal of the breach of participation agreement claim as well as any claim for indemnification of costs associated with this case. The plaintiffplaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint to add another claim under the lease and also filed a motion for partial summary judgment. In November 2015, AEGCo and I&M filed a motion to strike the plaintiff’splaintiffs’ motion for partial judgment and filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. In March 2016, the court entered an opinion and order in favor of AEGCo and I&M, dismissing certain of the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and dismissing claims for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and further dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for indemnification of costs. By the same order, the court permitted plaintiffs to move forward with their claim that AEGCo and I&M failed to exercise prudent utility practices in the maintenance and operation of Rockport Plant, Unit 2. In April 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all remaining claims with prejudice and the court subsequently entered a final judgment. In May 2016, Plaintiffsplaintiffs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on whether

AEGCo and I&M are in breach of certain contract provisions that plaintiffs allege operate to protect the plaintiffs’ residual interests in the unit and whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims that AEGCo and I&M breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In April 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion reversing the district court’s decisions which had dismissed certain of plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that the district court erred in holding that the modification to the consent decree was permitted under the terms of the lease agreement and remanded the case to the district court to enter summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor consistent with that ruling. AEGCo and I&M intend to file a notice of appeal and the matter is currently pending beforepetition for rehearing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. ManagementThe district court had previously dismissed plaintiffs’ claims seeking compensatory relief as premature. In addition, plaintiffs have yet to present a methodology for determining or any analysis supporting any alleged damages. As a result, management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring.

See a complete discussion of these matters in the “Environmental Issues” section of “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in the 20152016 Annual Report. AEP will seek recovery of expenditures for pollution control technologies and associated costs from customers through rates in regulated jurisdictions.  Environmental rules could result in accelerated depreciation, impairment of assets or regulatory disallowances.  If AEP is unable to recover the costs of environmental compliance, it would reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

The rules and proposed environmental controls discussed in the next several sections will have a material impact on the generating units in the AEP System.  Management continues to evaluate the impact of these rules, project scope and technology available to achieve compliance. As of June 30, 2016,March 31, 2017, the AEP System had a total generating capacity of approximately 31,00025,600 MWs, of which approximately 16,00013,500 MWs are coal-fired.  Management continues to refine the cost estimates of complying with these rules and other impacts of the environmental proposals on the fossil generating facilities. Based upon management estimates, AEP’s investment to meet these existing and proposed requirements ranges from approximately $3.2$4.3 billion to $3.8$4.9 billion throughbetween 2012 and 2025.  These amounts include investments to convert some of the coal generation to natural gas.  

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

The table below represents the following plants or units of plants were retired:

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