COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES

The disclosures in this note apply to all Registrants unless indicated otherwise.

The Registrants are subject to certain claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business.  In addition, the Registrants’ business activities are subject to extensive governmental regulation related to public health and the environment.  The ultimate outcome of such pending or potential litigation against the Registrants cannot be predicted.  Management accrues contingent liabilities only when management concludes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. When management determines that it is not probable, but rather reasonably possible that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements, management discloses such contingencies and the possible loss or range of loss if such estimate can be made. Any estimated range is based on currently available information and involves elements of judgment and significant uncertainties. Any estimated range of possible loss may not represent the maximum possible loss exposure. Circumstances change over time and actual results may vary significantly from estimates.

For current proceedings not specifically discussed below, management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, arising from such proceedings would have a material effect on the financial statements.

COMMITMENTS (Applies to all Registrants except AEP Texas and AEPTCo)

AEP subsidiaries have substantial commitments for fuel, energy and capacity contracts as part of the normal course of business. Certain contracts contain penalty provisions for early termination.

In accordance with the accounting guidance for “Commitments”, the following tables summarize the Registrants’ actual contractual commitments as of December 31, 2024:

Contractual Commitments - AEP	Less Than 1 Year		2-3 Years		4-5 Years		After 5 Years		Total
	(in millions)
Fuel Purchase Contracts (a)	$	1,002.0	$	942.0	$	475.7	$	368.3	$	2,788.0
Energy and Capacity Purchase Contracts	192.8		384.0		334.3		464.0		1,375.1
Total	$	1,194.8	$	1,326.0	$	810.0	$	832.3	$	4,163.1

Contractual Commitments - APCo	Less Than 1 Year		2-3 Years		4-5 Years		After 5 Years		Total
	(in millions)
Fuel Purchase Contracts (a)	$	506.7	$	328.6	$	167.0	$	96.0	$	1,098.3
Energy and Capacity Purchase Contracts	40.4		79.9		48.0		52.2		220.5
Total	$	547.1	$	408.5	$	215.0	$	148.2	$	1,318.8

Contractual Commitments - I&M	Less Than 1 Year		2-3 Years		4-5 Years		After 5 Years		Total
	(in millions)
Fuel Purchase Contracts (a)	$	151.5	$	346.6	$	220.7	$	263.9	$	982.7
Energy and Capacity Purchase Contracts	119.9		236.2		231.7		321.5		909.3
Total	$	271.4	$	582.8	$	452.4	$	585.4	$	1,892.0

Contractual Commitments - OPCo	Less Than 1 Year		2-3 Years		4-5 Years		After 5 Years		Total
	(in millions)
Energy and Capacity Purchase Contracts	$	33.2	$	64.2	$	66.3	$	69.5	$	233.2

Contractual Commitments - PSO	Less Than 1 Year		2-3 Years		4-5 Years		After 5 Years		Total
	(in millions)
Fuel Purchase Contracts (a)	$	27.4	$	17.0	$	—	$	—	$	44.4
Energy and Capacity Purchase Contracts	62.9		123.6		62.4		19.7		268.6
Total	$	90.3	$	140.6	$	62.4	$	19.7	$	313.0

Contractual Commitments - SWEPCo	Less Than 1 Year		2-3 Years		4-5 Years		After 5 Years		Total
	(in millions)
Fuel Purchase Contracts (a)	$	89.4	$	46.6	$	—	$	—	$	136.0
Energy and Capacity Purchase Contracts	11.5		13.2		—		—		24.7
Total	$	100.9	$	59.8	$	—	$	—	$	160.7

(a)Represents contractual commitments to purchase coal, natural gas, uranium and other consumables as fuel for electric generation along with related transportation of the fuel.

GUARANTEES

Liabilities for guarantees are recorded in accordance with the accounting guidance for “Guarantees.”  There is no collateral held in relation to any guarantees.  In the event any guarantee is drawn, there is no recourse to third-parties unless specified below.

Letters of Credit (Applies to AEP and AEP Texas)

Standby letters of credit are entered into with third-parties.  These letters of credit are issued in the ordinary course of business and cover items such as natural gas and electricity risk management contracts, construction contracts, insurance programs, security deposits and debt service reserves.

In March 2024, AEP increased its $4 billion revolving credit facility to $5 billion and extended the due date from March 2027 to March 2029. Also, in March 2024, AEP extended the due date of its $1 billion revolving credit facility from March 2025 to March 2027. AEP may issue up to $1.2 billion as letters of credit under these revolving credit facilities on behalf of subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2024, no letters of credit were issued under the revolving credit facility.

An uncommitted facility gives the issuer of the facility the right to accept or decline each request made under the facility. AEP issues letters of credit on behalf of subsidiaries under six uncommitted facilities totaling $450 million. The Registrants’ maximum future payments for letters of credit issued under the uncommitted facilities as of December 31, 2024 were as follows:

Company	Amount		Maturity
	(in millions)
AEP	$	238.0	January 2025 to November 2025
AEP Texas	1.8		July 2025

Indemnifications and Other Guarantees

Contracts

The Registrants enter into certain types of contracts which require indemnifications.  Typically these contracts include, but are not limited to, sale agreements, lease agreements, purchase agreements and financing agreements.  Generally, these agreements may include, but are not limited to, indemnifications around certain tax, contractual and environmental matters.  With respect to sale agreements, exposure generally does not exceed the sale price.  As of December 31, 2024, there were no material liabilities recorded for any indemnifications.

AEPSC conducts power purchase-and-sale activity on behalf of APCo, I&M, KPCo and WPCo, who are jointly and severally liable for activity conducted on their behalf.  AEPSC also conducts power purchase-and-sale activity on behalf of PSO and SWEPCo, who are jointly and severally liable for activity conducted on their behalf.

Lease Obligations

Certain Registrants lease equipment under master lease agreements.  See “Master Lease Agreements” section of Note 13 for additional information.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTINGENCIES (Applies to All Registrants except AEPTCo)

Federal EPA’s Revised CCR Rule

In April 2024, the Federal EPA finalized revisions to the CCR Rule to expand the scope of the rule to include inactive impoundments at inactive facilities (“legacy CCR surface impoundments”) as well as to establish requirements for currently exempt solid waste management units that involve the direct placement of CCR on the land (“CCR management units”). The Federal EPA is requiring that owners and operators of legacy surface impoundments comply with all of the existing CCR Rule requirements applicable to inactive CCR surface impoundments at active facilities, except for the location restrictions and liner design criteria. The rule establishes compliance deadlines for legacy surface impoundments to meet regulatory requirements, including a requirement to initiate closure within five years after the effective date of the final rule. The rule requires evaluations to be completed at both active facilities and inactive facilities with one or more legacy surface impoundments. Closure may be accomplished by applying an impermeable cover system over the CCR material (“closure in place”) or the CCR material may be excavated and placed in a compliant landfill (“closure by removal”). Groundwater monitoring and other analysis over the next three years will provide additional information on the planned closure method. AEP evaluated the applicability of the rule to current and former plant sites and recorded incremental ARO in the second quarter of 2024, as shown in the table below, based on initial cost estimates primarily reflecting compliance with the rule through closure in place and future groundwater monitoring requirements pursuant to the revised CCR Rule.

Registrant	Increase in ARO		Increase in Generation Property (a)		Increase in Regulatory Assets (b)		Charged to Operating Expenses (c)
	(in millions)
APCo	$	312.2	$	75.6	$	236.6	$	—
I&M	85.7		—		72.3		13.4
OPCo	52.9		—		—		52.9
PSO	33.7		33.7		—		—
SWEPCo	23.8		23.8		—		—
Non-Registrants	166.1		43.8		46.1		76.2
Total	$	674.4	$	176.9	$	355.0	$	142.5

(a)ARO is related to a legacy CCR surface impoundment or CCR management unit at an operating generation facility.

(b)ARO is related to a legacy CCR surface impoundment or CCR management unit at a retired generation facility and recognition of a regulatory asset in accordance with the accounting guidance for “Regulated Operations” is supported.

(c)ARO is related to a legacy CCR surface impoundment or CCR management unit and recognition of a regulatory asset in accordance with the accounting guidance for “Regulated Operations” is not yet supported.

As further groundwater monitoring and other analysis is performed, management expects to refine the assumptions and underlying cost estimates used in recording the ARO. These refinements may include, but are not limited to, changes in the expected method of closure, changes in estimated quantities of CCR at each site, the identification of new CCR management units, among other items. These future changes could have a material impact on the ARO and materially reduce future net income and cash flows and further impact financial condition.

AEP will seek cost recovery through regulated rates, including proposal of new regulatory mechanisms for cost recovery where existing mechanisms are not applicable. The rule could have an additional, material adverse impact on net income, cash flows and financial condition if AEP cannot ultimately recover these additional costs of compliance. Several parties, including AEP and one of its trade associations, have filed petitions for review of the rule with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. One of the parties also filed a motion to stay the rule pending the outcome of the litigation. In November 2024, the court denied the stay motion. Management cannot predict the outcome of the litigation.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund) and State Remediation

By-products from the generation of electricity include materials such as ash, slag, sludge, low-level radioactive waste and SNF.  Coal combustion by-products, which constitute the overwhelming percentage of these materials, are typically treated and deposited in captive disposal facilities or are beneficially utilized.  In addition, the generation plants and transmission and distribution facilities have used asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls and other hazardous and non-hazardous materials.  The Registrants currently incur costs to dispose of these substances safely.

Superfund addresses clean-up of hazardous substances that are released to the environment.  The Federal EPA administers the clean-up programs.  Several states enacted similar laws.  As of December 31, 2024, AGR, APCo, OPCo and SWEPCo are named as a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) for one, one, two and one sites, respectively, by the Federal EPA for which alleged liability is unresolved.  There are 11 additional sites for which APCo, I&M, KPCo, OPCo and SWEPCo received information requests which could lead to PRP designation. In those instances where a PRP or defendant has been named, disposal or recycling activities were in accordance with the then-applicable laws and regulations. Superfund does not recognize compliance as a defense, but imposes strict liability on parties who fall within its broad statutory categories.  Liability has been resolved for a number of sites with no significant effect on net income.

Management evaluates the potential liability for each Superfund site separately, but several general statements can be made about potential future liability.  Allegations that materials were disposed at a particular site are often unsubstantiated and the quantity of materials deposited at a site can be small and often non-hazardous.  Although Superfund liability has been interpreted by the courts as joint and several, typically many parties are named as PRPs for each site and several of the parties are financially sound enterprises.  As of December 31, 2024, management’s estimates do not anticipate material clean-up costs for identified Superfund sites.

NUCLEAR CONTINGENCIES (APPLIES TO AEP AND I&M)

I&M owns and operates the two-unit 2,296 MW Cook Plant under licenses granted by the NRC.  I&M has a significant future financial commitment to dispose of SNF and to safely decommission and decontaminate the plant.  The licenses to operate the two nuclear units at the Cook Plant expire in 2034 and 2037. Management has started the application process for license extensions for both units that would extend Unit 1 and Unit 2 to 2054 and 2057, respectively.  The operation of a nuclear facility also involves special risks, potential liabilities and specific regulatory and safety requirements.  By agreement, I&M is partially liable, together with all other electric utility companies that own nuclear generation units, for a nuclear power plant incident at any nuclear plant in the U.S.  Should a nuclear incident occur at any nuclear power plant in the U.S., the resultant liability could be substantial.

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Accumulation Disposal

The costs to decommission a nuclear plant are affected by NRC regulations and the SNF disposal program.  Decommissioning costs are accrued over the service life of Cook Plant.  The most recent decommissioning cost study was performed in 2024.  According to that study, stated in 2024 undiscounted dollars, the estimated cost of decommissioning and disposal of low-level radioactive waste was $2.4 billion, with additional ongoing costs of $7 million per year for post decommissioning storage of SNF and an eventual cost of $45 million for the subsequent decommissioning of the SNF storage facility. I&M recovers estimated decommissioning costs for the Cook Plant in its rates.  The amounts recovered in rates were $1 million, $2 million and $2 million for the years ended December 31, 2024, 2023 and 2022, respectively.  Decommissioning costs recovered from customers are deposited in external trusts.

As of December 31, 2024 and 2023, the total decommissioning trust fund balances were $4 billion and $3.5 billion, respectively.  The increase in the trust fund balance was driven by favorable investment performance in 2024. Trust fund earnings increase the fund assets and may decrease the amount remaining to be recovered from customers. Trust fund losses decrease the fund assets and may increase the amount remaining to be recovered from customers.  The decommissioning costs (including unrealized gains and losses, interest and trust funds expenses) increase or decrease the recorded liability.

I&M continues to work with regulators and customers to establish rates designed to collect the estimated costs of decommissioning the Cook Plant.  However, future net income and cash flows would be reduced and financial condition could be impacted if the cost of SNF disposal and decommissioning increases and cannot be recovered.

Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposal

The federal government is responsible for permanent SNF disposal and assesses fees to nuclear plant owners for SNF disposal.  A fee of one-mill per KWh for fuel consumed after April 6, 1983 at the Cook Plant was collected from customers and remitted to the DOE through May 14, 2014. In May 2014, pursuant to court order from the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the DOE adjusted the fee to $0. As of December 31, 2024 and 2023, fees and related interest of $316 million and $300 million, respectively, for fuel consumed prior to April 7, 1983 were recorded as Long-term Debt and funds collected from customers along with related earnings totaling $367 million and $348 million, respectively, to pay the fee, were recorded as part of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Decommissioning Trusts on the balance sheets.  I&M has not paid the government the pre-April 1983 fees due to continued delays and uncertainties related to the federal disposal program.

In 2011, I&M signed a settlement agreement with the federal government which permits I&M to make annual filings to recover certain SNF storage costs incurred as a result of the government’s delay in accepting SNF for permanent storage.  Under the settlement agreement, I&M received $12 million, $21 million and $3 million in 2024, 2023 and 2022, respectively, to recover costs and will be eligible to receive additional payment of annual claims for allowed costs that are incurred through December 31, 2024.  The proceeds reduced costs for dry cask storage.  As of December 31, 2024 and 2023, I&M deferred $11 million and $12 million, respectively, in Prepayments and Other Current Assets and $15 million and $9 million, respectively, in Deferred Charges and Other Noncurrent Assets on the balance sheets for dry cask storage and related operation and maintenance costs for recovery under this agreement. See “Fair Value Measurements of Trust Assets for Decommissioning and SNF Disposal” section of Note 11 for additional information.

Nuclear Insurance

I&M carries nuclear property insurance of $2.7 billion to cover a nuclear incident at Cook Plant including coverage for decontamination and stabilization, as well as premature decommissioning caused by a nuclear incident.  Insurance coverage for a nonnuclear property incident at Cook Plant is $750 million.  Additional insurance provides coverage for a weekly indemnity payment resulting from an insured accidental outage.  I&M utilizes industry mutual insurers for the placement of this insurance coverage.  Coverage from these industry mutual insurance programs require a contingent financial obligation of up to $47 million for I&M, which is assessable if the insurer’s financial resources would be inadequate to pay for industry losses.

The Price-Anderson Act, extended through December 31, 2025, establishes insurance protection for public nuclear liability arising from a nuclear incident of $16.3 billion and applies to any incident at a licensed reactor in the U.S.  Commercially available insurance, which must be carried for each licensed reactor, provides $500 million of primary coverage.  In the event of a nuclear incident at any nuclear plant in the U.S., the remainder of the liability would be provided by a deferred premium assessment of $332 million per nuclear incident on Cook Plant’s reactors payable in annual installments of $49 million.  The number of incidents for which payments could be required is not limited.

In the event of an incident of a catastrophic nature, I&M is covered for public nuclear liability for the first $500 million through commercially available insurance.  The next level of liability coverage of up to $15.8 billion would be covered by claim premium assessments made under the Price-Anderson Act. In the event nuclear losses or liabilities are underinsured or exceed accumulated funds, I&M would seek recovery of those amounts from customers through a rate increase. If recovery from customers is not possible, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

OPERATIONAL CONTINGENCIES

Insurance and Potential Losses

The Registrants maintain insurance coverage normal and customary for electric utilities, subject to various deductibles.  The Registrants also maintain property and casualty insurance that may cover certain physical damage or third-party injuries caused by cybersecurity incidents. Insurance coverage includes all risks of physical loss or damage to nonnuclear assets, subject to insurance policy conditions and exclusions.  Covered property generally includes power plants, substations, facilities and inventories.  Excluded property generally includes transmission and distribution lines, poles and towers.  The insurance programs also generally provide coverage against loss arising from certain claims made by third-parties and are in excess of retentions absorbed by the Registrants.  Coverage is generally provided by a combination of the protected cell of EIS and/or various industry mutual and/or commercial insurance carriers. See “Nuclear Contingencies” section above for additional information.

In July 2024, the Registrants renewed insurance programs including coverage for wildfire liability. Some potential losses or liabilities may not be insurable or the amount of insurance carried may not be sufficient to meet potential losses and liabilities, including, but not limited to, liabilities relating to a cybersecurity incident, extreme weather or wildfire related liabilities or damage to the Cook Plant and costs of replacement power in the event of an incident at the Cook Plant.  Future losses or

liabilities, if they occur, which are not completely insured, unless recovered through the rate-making process, could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Litigation Related to Ohio House Bill 6 (HB 6) (Applies to AEP and OPCo)

In 2019, Ohio adopted and implemented HB 6 which benefits OPCo by authorizing rate recovery for certain costs including renewable energy contracts and OVEC’s coal-fired generating units. OPCo engaged in lobbying efforts and provided testimony during the legislative process in connection with HB 6. In July 2020, an investigation led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office resulted in a federal grand jury indictment of an Ohio legislator and associates in connection with an alleged racketeering conspiracy involving the adoption of HB 6. After AEP learned of the criminal allegations against the Ohio legislator and others relating to HB 6, AEP, with assistance from outside advisors, conducted a review of the circumstances surrounding the passage of the bill. Management does not believe that AEP was involved in any wrongful conduct in connection with the passage of HB 6.

In August 2020, an AEP shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against AEP and certain of its officers for alleged violations of securities laws. In December 2021, the district court issued an opinion and order dismissing the securities litigation complaint with prejudice, determining that the complaint failed to plead any actionable misrepresentations or omissions. The plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling.

In January 2021, an AEP shareholder filed a derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purporting to assert claims on behalf of AEP against certain AEP officers and directors. In February 2021, a second AEP shareholder filed a similar derivative action in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio. In April 2021, a third AEP shareholder filed a similar derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and a fourth AEP shareholder filed a similar derivative action in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, Nassau County. These derivative complaints allege the officers and directors made misrepresentations and omissions similar to those alleged in the putative securities class action lawsuit filed against AEP. The derivative complaints (collectively, the “Derivative Actions”) together assert claims for: (a) breach of fiduciary duty, (b) waste of corporate assets, (c) unjust enrichment, (d) breach of duty for insider trading and (e) contribution for violations of sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and seek monetary damages and changes to AEP’s corporate governance and internal policies among other forms of relief. The court entered a scheduling order in the New York state court derivative action staying the case other than with respect to briefing the motion to dismiss. AEP filed substantive and forum-based motions to dismiss in April 2022. In June 2022, the Ohio state court entered an order continuing the stays of that case until the final resolution of the consolidated derivative actions pending in Ohio federal district court. In September 2022, the New York state court granted the forum-based motion to dismiss with prejudice and the plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the New York appellate court. In January 2023, the New York plaintiff filed a motion to intervene in the pending Ohio federal court action and withdrew his appeal in New York. The two derivative actions pending in federal district court in Ohio have been consolidated and the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint. AEP filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and subsequently filed a brief in opposition to the New York plaintiffs’ motion to intervene in the consolidated action in Ohio. In March 2023, the federal district court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice and denying the New York plaintiffs’ motion to intervene. In April 2023, one of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit of the Ohio federal district court order dismissing the consolidated action and denying the intervention.

In March 2021, AEP received a litigation demand letter from counsel representing a purported AEP shareholder. The litigation demand letter was directed to the Board of Directors of AEP (AEP Board) and contained factual allegations involving HB 6 that were generally consistent with those in the derivative litigation filed in state and federal court. The shareholder that sent the letter has since withdrawn the litigation demand, which is now terminated and of no further effect. In April 2023, AEP received a litigation demand letter from counsel representing the purported AEP shareholder who had filed the dismissed derivative action in New York state court and unsuccessfully tried to intervene in the consolidated derivative actions in Ohio federal court the (Litigation Demand). The Litigation Demand is directed to the AEP Board and contains factual allegations involving HB 6 that are generally consistent with those in the Derivative Actions. The Litigation Demand requested, among other things, that the AEP Board undertake an independent investigation into alleged legal violations by certain current and former directors and officers, and that AEP commence a civil action asserting claims similar to the claims asserted in the Derivative Actions. The AEP Board considered the Litigation Demand and formed a committee of the Board (the Demand Review Committee) to investigate, review, monitor and analyze the Litigation Demand and make a recommendation to the AEP Board regarding a reasonable and appropriate response to the same.

In April 2024, AEP reached an agreement with the four shareholders to fully and finally resolve the Derivative Actions and the Litigation Demand, and all claims asserted or that could have been asserted by any AEP shareholder based on the facts alleged, in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the settlement documents (the Settlement). In July 2024, the U.S. District Court preliminarily approved the Settlement. The Settlement includes a payment of $450 thousand for attorneys’ fees

and the implementation of certain governance changes outlined in the Settlement, many of which previously had been put in place. The Settlement does not include any admission of liability. In October 2024, the District Court issued an Order and Judgment approving the Settlement and granted an Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. Under the Settlement, all Derivative Actions have been dismissed, the Litigation Demand has been withdrawn, and those matters and claims have been resolved pursuant to the terms of the Settlement.

In May 2021, AEP received a subpoena from the SEC’s Division of Enforcement seeking various documents, including documents relating to the passage of HB 6 and documents relating to AEP’s policies and financial processes and controls. In August 2022, AEP received a second subpoena from the SEC seeking various additional documents relating to its ongoing investigation. In January 2025, AEP and the SEC reached a settlement concluding and resolving the SEC’s investigation concerning AEP’s relationship with and statements about Empowering Ohio’s Economy, a 501(c)(4) organization and AEP’s related internal accounting and disclosure controls. Under the terms of the administrative order, in which AEP neither admits nor denies the SEC’s findings, AEP agreed to pay a civil penalty of $19 million and to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of the specified provisions of the federal securities laws. AEP recorded an accrual for the full amount of the penalty in the third quarter of 2024. The $19 million penalty is included in Other Operation expenses on AEP’s statements of income and in Other Current Liabilities on AEP’s balance sheet.

Claims for Indemnification Made by Owners of the Gavin Power Station (Applies to AEP)

In November 2022, the Federal EPA issued a final decision denying Gavin Power LLC’s requested extension to allow a CCR surface impoundment at the Gavin Power Station to continue to receive CCR and non-CCR waste streams after April 11, 2021 until May 4, 2023 (the Gavin Denial). As part of the Gavin Denial, the Federal EPA made several assertions related to the CCR Rule (see “Environmental Issues - CCR Rule” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information), including an assertion that the closure of the 300 acre unlined fly ash reservoir (FAR) is noncompliant with the CCR Rule in multiple respects. The Gavin Power Station was formerly owned and operated by AEP and was sold to Gavin Power LLC and Lightstone Generation LLC in 2017. Pursuant to the PSA, AEP maintained responsibility to complete closure of the FAR in accordance with the closure plan approved by the Ohio EPA which was completed in July 2021. The PSA contains indemnification provisions, pursuant to which the owners of the Gavin Power Station have notified AEP they believe they are entitled to indemnification for any damages that may result from these claims, including any future enforcement or litigation resulting from any determinations of noncompliance by the Federal EPA with various aspects of the CCR Rule consistent with the Gavin Denial. The owners of the Gavin Power Station have also sought indemnification for landowner claims for property damage allegedly caused by modifications to the FAR. Management does not believe that the owners of the Gavin Power Station have any valid claim for indemnity or otherwise against AEP under the PSA. In January 2024, Gavin Power LLC also filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging various violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and asserting that the Federal EPA, through its prior inaction, has waived and is estopped from raising certain objections raised in the Gavin Denial. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that is reasonably possible of occurring.

Litigation Regarding Justice Thermal Coal Contract

In December 2023, APCo filed a suit in the Franklin County Ohio Court of Common Pleas seeking a declaratory judgment confirming APCo’s right to terminate a long-term coal contract with Justice Thermal LLC (Justice Thermal) based on Justice Thermal’s failure to perform under the contract. APCo terminated that contract in January 2024, and in April 2024, APCo filed an amended complaint seeking a declaration that the termination was proper and also seeking damages for Justice Thermal’s breach of contract. Justice Thermal filed an answer and counterclaim in April 2024, contesting the validity of the contract termination and asserting counterclaims. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release pursuant to which the litigation was dismissed with prejudice in September 2024 and each party released the other from all claims relating to the contract or the litigation, and as a result this matter has been resolved.