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 1 – 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.  For a more detailed discussion of these factors, see “Risk Factors” in Part I of the 2019 Annual Report and in Part II of this report.

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.

In March 2020, COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its rapid spread around the world and throughout the United States prompted many countries, including the United States, to institute restrictions on travel, public gatherings and certain business operations. These restrictions significantly disrupted economic activity in AEP’s service territory and could reduce future demand for energy, particularly from commercial and industrial customers. Although AEP cannot predict the severity or duration of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, AEP currently anticipates a 3.4%2.7% reduction in weather-normalized retail sales volume in 2020 as compared to the prior year. DuringFor the first half ofnine months ended September 30, 2020, AEP experienced a reduction in weather-normalized retail sales volume of 3.1%3.0% as compared to the first half of 2019same period in the prior year primarily driven by a 6.6%7.0% decrease in the industrial customer class and a 5.0%4.9% decrease in the commercial customer class offset by an increase in demand of 1.9%2.6% from the residential customer class. The reduction in weather-normalized retail sales volume of 3.1%3.0% did not result in a significant decrease in the corresponding retail margins for the sixnine months ended 2020 as the increase in higher margin residential sales volumes partially offset the decreases in the industrial and commercial sales volumes. Furthermore, the rate design for certain industrial customers includes demand provisions designed to cover the fixed portion of utility costs minimizing the impact of the fluctuations in usage on revenues. AEP’s load forecast is highly dependent on many factors including, but not limited to, the extent and duration of the stay at home restrictions, the speed and strength of economic recovery and the extent and duration of the secondnext wave of COVID-19 infection. If the severity of the economic disruption increases, AEP’s future results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows could be further adversely impacted. See Customer Demand for additional information.

During the first quarter of 2020, AEP’s electric operating companies informed both retail customers and state regulators that disconnections for non-payment were temporarily suspended. Disconnections were reinstated in July 2020 in MichiganShortly thereafter, AEP’s state regulators also imposed temporary moratoria on customary disconnection practices. During the third and Oklahoma. Disconnections are anticipated to be reinstated starting in August or Septemberthe fourth quarter of 2020, certain state regulators began to lift restrictions on disconnects. As of September 30, 2020, AEP resumed disconnections in Tennessee, Texas (applies to SWEPCo jurisdiction only), Louisiana,its regulated jurisdictions with the exception of Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio,Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana and Indiana. Current continuingTennessee. AEP’s electric operating companies continue to work with regulators and stakeholders in these states and management currently anticipates resuming customary disconnection practices in the fourth quarter of 2020. However, this timing could change if there is new legislation or other regulatory directives issued in the future. Continuing adverse economic conditions may result in the inability of customers to pay for electric service, which could affect revenue recognition and the collectability of accounts receivable. During the secondthird quarter of 2020, the Registrants reviewed current collections experience with historical trends, specifically reviewing metrics such as customer receivables and cash collections, days sales outstanding, daily customer deposits, and aging summaries. In addition, the Registrants reviewed historical loss information generally comprised of a rolling 12-month average, in conjunction with a qualitative assessment of elements that impact the collectability of receivables, such as changes in economic factors, regulatory matters, industry trends, customer credit factors, payment plan options and other programs available to customers. Based on this review, AEP’sthe Registrants’ accounts receivable aging was negatively impacted primarily due to the suspension of the customer disconnects. However, as disconnect moratoriums ended or are approaching their end dates, AEP is proactively engaging with customers to collect payments or establish payment arrangements for outstanding balances. As of September 30, 2020, AEP currently does not expect the deterioration in aging to have a material adverse impact on the Registrants’ allowance for uncollectible accounts based on considerations of the recentCOVID-19 impacts of COVID-19 and past trends during times of economic instability. Management will continuecontinues to monitor developments affecting suspensions of disconnections and its impact on customer collections. Further deterioration in AEP’s ability to collect from its customers could significantly impact AEP’s future results of operations, financial conditions, and cash flows.

In May 2020, AEP Credit amended its receivables securitization agreement to increase the eligibility criteria related to aged receivable requirements for the participating affiliated utility subsidiaries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of JuneSeptember 30, 2020, the affiliated utility subsidiaries are in compliance with all requirements under the agreement. To the extent that an affiliated utility subsidiary is deemed ineligible under the agreement, receivables would no longer be purchased by the bank conduits and the Registrants would need to rely on additional sources of funding for operation and working capital, which may adversely impact liquidity.

The Registrants have worked with their state commissions to achieve deferral authority for increased costsincremental expenses incurred due to COVID-19. The majorityAll of theseAEP’s regulated jurisdictions have provided deferral authority for incremental COVID-19 costs including uncollectible expense. Initialissued initial COVID-19 orders for deferrals have yet to be issued by Kentucky andwith the exception of Tennessee. If any costs related to COVID-19 are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

The effects of the continued COVID-19 pandemic and related government responses could also include extended disruptions to supply chains, reduced labor availability, reduced dispatch for certain generation assets 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 JuneSeptember 30, 2020, there were no material adverse impacts to the Registrants’ operations and supplier contracts due to COVID-19. AEP will continue to monitor developments affecting facility operations and will take additional actions necessary in order to mitigate adverse impacts to the Registrants’ future results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

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 occurredexisted as of JuneSeptember 30, 2020.

Market volatility and reduction in collections coupled with longer collection periods due to the expansion of customer payment arrangements could reduce cash from operations and cause an adverse impact to liquidity. During the first sixnine months of 2020, AEP increased its liquidity position to mitigate the market risk and the collections risk due to COVID-19. The Registrants’ access to funding was limited for a period of time duringDuring the first quarter and thereforeof 2020, AEP entered into a $1 billion 364–day term loan to reduce reliance on commercial paper and help mitigate potential future liquidity risks. In addition, forduring the first sixnine months of 2020, AEP issued approximately $2.4$4.0 billion in long-term debt. As of JuneSeptember 30, 2020, AEP’s available liquidity is $2.9was $3.8 billion. Management believes the Registrants have adequate liquidity under existing credit facilities. In the first quarter of 2020, AEP shifted capital expenditures of $500 million out of 2020 into future periods to further mitigate adverse liquidity impacts. In the second quarter of 2020, AEP reinstated $100 million of capital expenditures back into 2020.2020 that had previously been deferred. To the extent that future access to the capital markets or the cost of funding is adversely affected by COVID-19, future results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows may be adversely impacted.

In March 2020, President Trumpthe CARES Act was signed into law legislation referred to as the "Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act" (the CARES Act).law.  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. In May 2020, the House passed the “Health"Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act” (the HEROESAct" (HEROES Act) pending decision by the Senate. If enacted, the HEROES Act would disallow NOL carrybacks to any tax year beginning before January 1, 2018.  As of June 30, 2020,Pursuant to the CARES Act, AEP, hasAPCo and OPCo requested and in July received a $20 million, $7 million and $9 million, respectively, refund of AMT creditcredit. In the third quarter of 2020, AEP also requested a $95 million 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.provision of the CARES Act. AEP carried back an NOL generated on the 2019 Federal income tax return at a 21% federal corporate income tax rate to the 2014 Federal income tax return at a 35% corporate income tax rate. As a result of the change in the corporate income tax rates between the two periods, AEP realized a tax benefit of $52 million, recorded discretely, primarily at the Generation & Marketing segment. On October 1, 2020, after AEP filed its request with the IRS, the House passed a revised version of the HEROES Act; which similar to the original legislation would disallow NOL carryback to years prior to 2018. Management will continue to monitor the potential impact of this legislation. The Registrants are currently expect to deferdeferring payments of the employer share of payroll taxes for the period March 27, 2020 through December 31, 2020 and will pay 50% of the obligation by December 31, 2021 and the remaining 50% by December 31, 2022. As of September 30, 2020, the Registrants have deferred $32 million of the employer share of payroll taxes and anticipate to defer approximately $50 million by December 31, 2020.

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 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 JuneSeptember 30, 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

AEP’s weather-normalized retail sales volumes for the secondthird quarter of 2020 decreased by 5.9%2.6% from the secondthird quarter of 2019. Weather-normalized residential sales increased by 6.2%3.8% in the secondthird quarter of 2020 from the secondthird quarter of 2019. AEP’s secondthird quarter 2020 industrial sales volumes decreased by 12.4%7.8% compared to the secondthird quarter of 2019. The decline in industrial sales was spread across many industries. Weather-normalized commercial sales decreased 10.1%4.6% in the secondthird quarter of 2020 from the secondthird quarter of 2019.

AEP’s weather-normalized retail sales volumes for the sixnine months ended JuneSeptember 30, 2020 decreased by 3.1%3.0% compared to the sixnine months ended JuneSeptember 30, 2019. Weather-normalized residential sales increased by 1.9%2.6% for the sixnine months ended JuneSeptember 30, 2020 compared to the sixnine months ended JuneSeptember 30, 2019. AEP’s industrial sales volumes for the sixnine months ended JuneSeptember 30, 2020 decreased 6.6%7.0% compared to the sixnine months ended JuneSeptember 30, 2019. The decline in industrial sales was spread across many industries. Weather-normalized commercial sales decreased 5%4.9% for the sixnine months ended JuneSeptember 30, 2020 compared to the sixnine months ended JuneSeptember 30, 2019.

As a result of the impact of COVID-19, AEP revised its forecast for 2020 weather-normalized retail sales volumes in April 2020 and September 2020 from the forecast presented in the 2019 10-K. In 2020, AEP currently anticipates weather-normalized retail sales volumes will decrease by 3.4%2.7%. AEP expects industrial class sales volumes to decrease by 8%6.5% in 2020, while weather-normalized residential sales volumes are projected to increase by 3%3.1%. Finally, AEP currently projects weather-normalized commercial sales volumes to decrease by 5.6%4.8%.

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 JuneSeptember 30, 2020, subsidiaries within AEP’s Generation & Marketing segment had approximately 1,4231,520 MWs of contracted renewable generation projects in-service.  In addition, as of JuneSeptember 30, 2020, these subsidiaries had approximately 160140 MWs of renewable generation projects under construction with total estimated capital costs of $235$243 million related to these projects.

In March 2020, management placed 10 hydroelectric generation plants under study for a potential sale. In April 2020, the Virginia Clean Economy Act was signed into law by the Virginia Governor. The new law will provide renewable credits to APCo for its existing hydroelectric generation plants. As a result of the new law, management removed the three APCo hydroelectric generation plants (London, Marmet and Winfield) from the list of plants identified for 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 remaining 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 ofagreements for these plants would not be completedentered into 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. After careful consideration of current economic conditions, and particularly for the benefit of their customers, management of SWEPCo and CLECO determined DHLC would not proceed developing additional Oxbow Lignite Company (Oxbow) mining areas for future lignite extraction and ceased extraction of lignite at the mine in May 2020. Based on these actions, management revised the estimated useful life of DHLC’s and Oxbow’s assets to coincide with the date at which extraction was discontinued in the second quarter of 2020 and the date at which delivery of lignite is expected to cease in September 2021. 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 cessation of lignite mining.

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 JuneSeptember 30, 2020, DHLC has unbilled lignite inventory and fixed costs of $94$36 million that will be billed to SWEPCo prior to the closure of the Dolet Hills Power Station. In 2009, SWEPCo acquired interests in 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 JuneSeptember 30, 2020, Oxbow has unbilled fixed costs of $11$10 million that will be billed to SWEPCo prior to the closure of the Dolet Hills Power Station. DHLC and Oxbow have billed SWEPCo $49$111 million for lignite deliveries from April 2020 through JuneSeptember 2020, which primarily includes accelerated depreciation and amortization of fixed costs. 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 from 12.38%Management continues to 9.88%. In May 2020, FERC issued Opinion 569-A, granting rehearing on several issues. Opinion 569, as modified by Opinion 569-A, results in a revised ROE methodology that relies on three financial models. The financial models used to establish a composite zone of reasonableness are the: (a) discounted cash flow model, (b) capital asset pricing model and (c) risk premium model. Order 569-A determined the base ROE for MISO’s transmission-owning members should be 10.02% (10.52% inclusive of the RTO incentive adder of 0.5%). Management believes FERC Opinion Nos. 569 and 569-A change the expectation of a four-model framework proposed by FERC in 2018 and vetted widely in FERCmonitor FERC’s 2019 Notice of Inquiry regarding base ROE policy. Management does not believe this ruling will have a material impact on financial results for its MISOpolicy, FERC’s 2020 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding transmission owning subsidiaries.incentives policy, and various other matters pending before FERC with the potential to affect FERC transmission ROE methodology.

If FERC makes any changes to its ROE and incentive policies, they would be applied, as applicable, to AEP’s PJM, SPP and SPPMISO 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’s stay of the lease litigation expired in February 2020, but the court later extendedAugust 2020. Upon expiration of the stay, through August 13,plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the consent decree violates the facility lease and the participation agreement and requesting that the district court enter a judgment for the plaintiffs on their breach of contract claim. AEP’s memorandum in opposition was filed in October 2020. All deadlines, including discovery, are stayed, pending resolution of the motion. 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.  In July 2020, plaintiffs amended the complaint to add three new patents. The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages.  The case is scheduled for trial in January 2023. 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);Act; 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. The denial of those claims was appealed to the AEP System Retirement Plan Appeal Committee and the Committee upheld the denial of claims. 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 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.  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 JuneSeptember 30, 2020, the AEP System had generating capacity of approximately 24,70024,300 MWs, of which approximately 12,60012,100 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.

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. Construction of the SCR technology was completed by June 1, 2020, testing was conducted, and the unit was released for dispatch on June 5, 2020.

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

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. The rule has been challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

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 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 two 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

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.

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), effective July 2020, requiring APCo to close certain ash disposal units at the retired Glen Lyn Station by removal of all coal combustion material.  As a result, in June 2020, APCo recorded a $199 million revision to increase estimated Glen Lyn Station ash disposal ARO liabilities.  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 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.

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 asthat have had their wastewater discharge permits are renewed and making appropriate adjustmentshave been asked to theirmonitor 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

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 became 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. Challenges to the final rule and requests for a preliminary injunction have been brought by states and other groups in multiple U.S. District Courts. At this time, none of the jurisdictions in which AEP operates are impacted by a stay. Management is monitoring these various proceedings but is unable to predict the actions of the various courts.

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. In May 2020, the Court revised its order lifting the injunction for non-oil and gas pipeline construction activities and routine maintenance, inspection and repair activities on existing NWP 12 projects. The Department of Justice appealed the Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and moved for stay pending appeal, which was denied. In June 2020, the Department of Justice submitted an application to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting a stay of the District Court’s Order, and the Court granted the request with respect to all oil and gas pipelines except the Keystone Pipeline. Management is monitoring the litigation and evaluating other permitting alternatives, but is currently unable to predict the impact of future proceedings 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 increased from $461$734 million in 2019 to $521$749 million in 2020 to primarily due to:

Earnings Attributable to AEP Common Shareholders decreased from $1,034$1,768 million in 2019 to $1,016$1,765 million in 2020 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.