AEP Texas Cumulative Revenues Subject to Review

  
  
AEP Texas Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and AEP Texas)  
AEP Texas Interim Transmission and Distribution Rates  
Through June 30, 2022, AEP Texas’ cumulative revenues from interim base rate increases that are subject to review is approximately $444 million. A base rate review could result in a refund to customers if AEP Texas incurs a disallowance of the transmission or distribution investment on which an interim increase was based. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses, if any, that are reasonably possible of occurring. A revenue decrease, including a refund of interim transmission and distribution rates, could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. AEP Texas is required to file for a comprehensive rate review no later than April 5, 2024.  
APCo and WPCo Rate Matters (Applies to AEP and APCo)  
2017-2019 Virginia Triennial Review  
In November 2020, the Virginia SCC issued an order on APCo’s 2017-2019 Triennial Review filing concluding that APCo earned above its authorized ROE but within its ROE band for the 2017-2019 period, resulting in no refund to customers and no change to APCo base rates on a prospective basis. The Virginia SCC approved a prospective 9.2% ROE for APCo's 2020-2022 triennial review period with the continuation of a 140 basis point band (8.5% bottom, 9.2% midpoint, 9.9% top).   
In December 2020, an intervenor filed a petition at the Virginia SCC requesting reconsideration of: (a) the failure of the Virginia SCC to apply a threshold earnings test to the approved regulatory asset for APCo’s closed coal-fired generation assets and (b) the Virginia SCC’s use of a 2011 benchmark study to measure the replacement value of capacity for purposes of APCo’s 2017 – 2019 earnings test.  
In December 2020, APCo filed a petition at the Virginia SCC requesting reconsideration of: (a) certain issues related to APCo’s going-forward rates and (b) the Virginia SCC’s decision to deny APCo tariff changes that align rates with underlying costs. For APCo’s going-forward rates, APCo requested that the Virginia SCC clarify its final order and clarify whether APCo’s current rates will allow it to earn a fair return. If the Virginia SCC’s order did conclude that APCo was able to earn a fair return through existing base rates, APCo further requested that the Virginia SCC clarify whether it has the authority to also permit an increase in base rates.  
In March 2021, an intervenor filed its appeal with the Virginia Supreme Court related to the November 2020 order in which it stated the Virginia SCC erred: (a) in determining that Virginia law did not apply to its determination to permit amortization for recovery of costs associated with retired coal-fired generation assets, (b) in establishing a new regulatory asset for a cost incurred outside of the triennial review period due to its failure to apply a threshold earnings test before approving deferred cost recovery and (c) in misapplying the requirement that APCo bear the burden of demonstrating that power purchases made by APCo from its affiliate, OVEC, were priced at the lower of OVEC’s cost or the market price for nonaffiliated power.  
In March 2021, APCo filed its appeal with the Virginia Supreme Court related to the November 2020 order in which it stated the Virginia SCC erred: (a) in finding that costs associated with asset impairments related to early retirement determinations made by APCo for certain generation facilities should not be attributed to the test periods under review and deemed fully recovered in the period recorded, (b) in finding that it was permitted to evaluate the reasonableness of APCo’s decision to record, per books for financial reporting purposes, asset impairments related to early retirement determinations for certain generation facilities, (c) as a result of the errors described in (a) and (b), in denying APCo an increase in rates, (d) in failing to review and make any findings regarding whether APCo’s rates would allow it to earn a fair rate of return going forward, (e) in denying APCo an increase in base rates by failing to ensure that APCo has an opportunity to recover its costs and earn a fair rate of return, thereby resulting in a taking of private property for public use without just compensation and (f) in retroactively adjusting APCo’s depreciation expense for purposes of calculating APCo’s earnings for the 2017-2019 triennial period. 158
