MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW

Customer Demand

In comparison to 2013, heating degree days for the six months ended June 30, 2014 were up 32% in our western region and 20% in our eastern region. Our weather-normalized retail sales volumes for the second quarter of 2014 decreased by 0.5% from their levels for the second quarter of 2013 and increased by 0.6% for the first six months of 2014 from their levels for the first six months of 2013. In comparison to 2013, our industrial sales volume decreased 0.5% and 1.6% for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014, respectively, due mainly to the closure of Ormet, a large aluminum company. Excluding Ormet, our six months ended June 30, 2014 industrial sales volumes increased 3.4% over the six months ended June 30, 2013. Following Ormet's closure in October 2013, the loss of Ormet's load will not have a material impact on future gross margin because power previously sold to Ormet will be available for sale into generally higher priced wholesale markets.

Ohio Customer Choice

In our Ohio service territory, various CRES providers are targeting retail customers by offering alternative generation service. The reduction in gross margin as a result of customer switching in Ohio is partially offset by (a) collection of capacity revenues from CRES providers, (b) wholesale sales, (c) deferral of unrecovered capacity costs, (d) RSR collections and (e) revenues from AEP Energy. AEP Energy is our CRES provider and part of our Generation & Marketing segment which targets retail customers, both within and outside of our retail service territory.

Ohio Electric Security Plan Filings

2009 - 2011 ESP

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate proceeding which implemented a PIRR to recover OPCo’s deferred fuel costs in rates beginning September 2012. As of June 30, 2014 , OPCo’s net deferred fuel balance was $411 million, excluding unrecognized equity carrying costs. Decisions from the Supreme Court of Ohio are pending related to various appeals which, if ordered, could reduce OPCo’s net deferred fuel costs balance up to the full amount.

 

June 2012 - May 2015 Ohio ESP Including Capacity Charge

In August 2012, the PUCO issued an order which adopted and modified a new ESP that establishes base generation rates through May 2015. This ruling was generally upheld in PUCO rehearing orders in January and March 2013.

In July 2012, the PUCO issued an order in a separate capacity proceeding which stated that OPCo must charge CRES providers the RPM price and authorized OPCo to defer a portion of its incurred capacity costs not recovered from CRES providers up to $188.88/MW day. The OPCo RPM price collected from CRES providers, which includes reserve margins, was approximately $34/MW day through May 2014 and is $150/MW day from June 2014 through May 2015. In December 2012, various parties filed notices of appeal of the capacity costs decision with the Supreme Court of Ohio.

As part of the August 2012 ESP order, the PUCO established a non-bypassable RSR, effective September 2012. The RSR was collected from customers at $3.50/MWh through May 2014 and is currently collected at $4.00/MWh for the period June 2014 through May 2015, with $1.00/MWh applied to the recovery of deferred capacity costs. In April

and May 2013, OPCo and various intervenors filed appeals with the Supreme Court of Ohio challenging portions of the PUCO’s ESP order, including the RSR. As of June 30, 2014 , OPCo’s incurred deferred capacity costs balance was $396 million, including debt carrying costs.

In November 2013, the PUCO issued an order approving OPCo’s competitive bid process with modifications. The modifications include the delay of the energy auctions that were originally ordered in the ESP order. In February 2014, OPCo conducted an energy-only auction for 10% of the SSO load with delivery beginning April 2014 through May 2015. In May 2014, OPCo conducted an additional energy-only auction for 25% of the SSO load with delivery beginning November 2014 through May 2015. The PUCO also ordered OPCo to conduct energy-only auctions for an additional 25% of the SSO load with delivery beginning November 2014 through May 2015 and for the remaining 40% of the SSO load for delivery from January 2015 through May 2015. OPCo will conduct energy and capacity auctions for its entire SSO load for delivery starting in June 2015. The PUCO also approved the unbundling of the FAC into fixed and energy-related components and an intervenor proposal to blend the $188.88/MW day capacity price in proportion to the percentage of energy planned to be auctioned. Additionally, the PUCO ordered that intervenor concerns related to the recovery of the fixed fuel costs through potentially both the FAC and the approved capacity charges be addressed in subsequent FAC proceedings. Management believes that these intervenor concerns are without merit. In January 2014, the PUCO denied all rehearing requests and agreed to issue a supplemental request for an independent auditor in the 2012 - 2013 FAC proceeding to separately examine the recovery of the fixed fuel costs, including OVEC. In March 2014, the PUCO approved OPCo’s request to implement riders related to the unbundling of the FAC. In May 2014, an independent auditor was selected by the PUCO and an audit of the recovery of the fixed fuel costs began in June 2014. A final audit report is expected in the third quarter of 2014.

Proposed June 2015 - May 2018 ESP

In December 2013, OPCo filed an application with the PUCO to approve an ESP that includes proposed rate adjustments and the continuation and modification of certain existing riders effective June 2015 through May 2018. This filing is consistent with the PUCO’s objective for a full transition from FAC and base generation rates to competitively procured SSO supply. The proposal includes a recommended auction schedule, a return on common equity of 10.65% on capital costs for certain riders and estimates an average decrease in rates of 9% over the three-year term of the plan for customers who receive their RPM and energy auction-based generation through OPCo. The proposal also includes a purchased power agreement rider (PPA) that would allow retail customers to receive a rate stabilizing charge or credit by hedging market-based prices with a cost-based purchase power agreement. Additionally, in July 2014, OPCo submitted a separate application to continue the RSR established in the June 2012 - May 2015 ESP to collect the unrecovered portion of the deferred capacity costs at the rate of $4.00/MWh until the balance of the capacity deferrals has been collected. In May 2014, intervenors and the PUCO staff filed testimony that provided various recommendations including the rejection and/or modification of various riders, including the Distribution Investment Rider and the proposed PPA. Hearings at the PUCO in the ESP case were held in June 2014.

If OPCo is ultimately not permitted to fully collect its ESP rates, including the RSR, its deferred fuel balance and its deferred capacity cost, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. See “Ohio Electric Security Plan Filings” section of Note 4 .

2012 Texas Base Rate Case

Upon rehearing in January 2014, the PUCT reversed its initial ruling and determined that AFUDC was excluded from the Turk Plant’s Texas jurisdictional capital cost cap.  As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2013, SWEPCo reversed $114 million of previously recorded regulatory disallowances.  The resulting annual base rate increase is approximately $52 million.  In May 2014, intervenors filed appeals of the order with the Texas District Court.  In June 2014, SWEPCo intervened in those appeals and filed initial responses.  If any part of the PUCT order is overturned it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.  See the “2012 Texas Base Rate Case” section of Note 4 .

2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing

In 2012, SWEPCo initiated a proceeding to establish new formula base rates in Louisiana, including recovery of the Louisiana jurisdictional share of the Turk Plant. In February 2013, a settlement was approved by the LPSC that increased 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 of the Turk Plant and Stall Unit, subject to refund. The settlement also provided that the LPSC will review base rates in 2014 and 2015 and that SWEPCo will recover non-fuel Turk Plant costs and a full weighted-average cost of capital return on the prudently incurred Turk Plant investment in jurisdictional rate base, effective January 2013. If the LPSC orders refunds based upon the pending staff review of the cost of service or the prudence review of the Turk Plant, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. See the “2012 Louisiana Formula Rate Filing” section of Note 4 .

2014 Oklahoma Base Rate Case

In January 2014, PSO filed a request with the OCC to increase annual base rates by $38 million, based upon a 10.5% return on common equity. This revenue increase includes a proposed increase in depreciation rates of $29 million. In addition, the filing proposed recovery of advanced metering costs through a separate rider over a three-year deployment period requesting $7 million of revenues in year one, increasing to $28 million in year three. The filing also proposed expansion of an existing transmission rider currently recovered in base rates to include additional transmission-related costs that are expected to increase over the next several years.

In June 2014, a non-unanimous stipulation agreement between PSO, the OCC staff and certain intervenors was filed with the OCC. The parties to the stipulation recommended no overall change to the transmission rider or to annual revenues, other than additional revenues through a separate rider related to advanced metering costs, and that the terms of the stipulation be effective November 2014. The advanced metering rider would provide $7 million of revenues in 2014 and increases to $27 million in 2016. New depreciation rates are recommended for advanced metering investments and existing meters, to be effective November 2014. Additionally, the stipulation recommends recovery of regulatory assets for 2013 storms and regulatory case expenses. In July 2014, the Attorney General joined in the stipulation agreement. A hearing at the OCC was held in July 2014. If the OCC were to disallow any portion of this settlement agreement, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. See the “2014 Oklahoma Base Rate Case” section of Note 4 .

2014 Virginia Biennial Base Rate Case

In March 2014, APCo filed a biennial generation and distribution base rate case with the Virginia SCC. In accordance with a Virginia statute, APCo did not request an increase in base rates as its Virginia retail combined rate of return on common equity for 2012 and 2013 is within the statutory range of the approved return on common equity of 10.9%. The filing included a request to decrease generation depreciation rates, effective February 2015, primarily due to the change in the expected service life of certain plants. Additionally, the filing included a request to amortize $7 million annually for two years, beginning February 2015, related to IGCC and other deferred costs. If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. See the “2014 Virginia Biennial Base Rate Case” section of Note 4 .

2014 West Virginia Base Rate Case

In June 2014, APCo filed a request with the WVPSC to increase annual base rates by $181 million, based upon a 10.62% return on common equity, to be effective in the second quarter of 2015. The filing included a request to increase generation depreciation rates and requested amortization of $89 million over five years related to 2012 West Virginia storm costs, IGCC and other deferred costs. In addition to the base rate request, the filing also included a request to implement a rider of approximately $45 million annually to recover total vegetation management costs. If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. See the “2014 West Virginia Base Rate Case” section of Note 4 .

PJM Capacity Market

AGR is required to offer all of its available generation capacity in the PJM RPM auction, which is conducted three years in advance of the actual delivery year. Therefore, the majority of AGR generation assets are subject to PJM capacity prices for periods after May 2015. Through May 2015, AGR will provide generation capacity to OPCo for both switched and non-switched OPCo generation customers. For switched customers, OPCo pays AGR $188.88/MW day for capacity. For non-switched OPCo generation customers, OPCo pays AGR its blended tariff rate for capacity consisting of $188.88/MW day for auctioned load and the non-fuel generation portion of its base rate for non-auctioned load. AGR’s excess capacity is subject to the PJM RPM auction. Shown below are the current auction prices for capacity, as announced/settled by PJM:

We expect a significant decline in AGR capacity revenues after May 2015 when the Power Supply Agreement between AGR and OPCo ends. Additionally, we expect a decline in AGR capacity revenues from June 2016 through May 2017 based upon the decrease in the PJM base auction price.

In 2013, AEP formed a coalition with other utility companies to address mutual concerns related to the PJM capacity auction process. The advocacy work included: (a) assuring that capacity imports had firm transmission and could be dispatched by PJM as well as establishing more limiting criteria, (b) placing limits on the number of MWs of summer-only demand response to assure more year-round reliability, (c) modification and enforcement of the dispatch of demand response to better reflect real-time capacity requirements and (d) tightening of rules for incremental auctions in which speculative bidders sell resources in the base auction and buy back that capacity in an incremental auction, resulting in no additional capacity and artificially suppressing market prices.

PJM made four FERC filings related to these four issues beginning in the fall of 2013. FERC accepted the majority of the PJM recommendations in the first three filings. However, FERC rejected the fourth filing on incremental auctions, but set the docket for a technical conference for further discussion.

SPP Integrated Power Market

In March 2014, SPP changed from an energy imbalance service market to a fully integrated power market. In the past, PSO and SWEPCo would satisfy their load requirements with their own generation resources or through the Operating Agreement. In the new integrated power market, PSO and SWEPCo operate as standalone entities by offering their respective generation into the SPP power market, which then economically dispatches the resources. This change further enables retail customers to obtain low cost power through either internal generation or power purchases from the SPP market. The new integrated power market now operates in a similar manner as the PJM power market for the AEP East Companies. No significant impact on results of operations is expected due to this change.

Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 - Environmental Projects

To comply with pending Federal EPA regulations, SWEPCo is currently constructing environmental control projects to meet mercury and air toxics standards for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 at a cost of approximately $410 million, excluding AFUDC. Management currently estimates that the total environmental projects to be completed through 2020 for Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 will cost approximately $600 million, excluding AFUDC. As of June 30, 2014 , SWEPCo has incurred $72 million in costs related to these projects. SWEPCo will seek to recover these project costs from customers through filings at the state commissions and FERC. These environmental projects could be impacted

by pending carbon emission regulations.  See "CO ₂ Regulation"  section of “Environmental Issues” below.  As of June 30, 2014 , the net book value of Welsh Plant, Units 1 and 3 was $297 million, before cost of removal, including materials and supplies inventory and CWIP.  If any of these costs are not recoverable, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. 

Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project (LCM Project)

In April and May 2012, I&M filed a petition with the IURC and the MPSC, respectively, for approval of the LCM Project, which consists of a group of capital projects to ensure the safe and reliable operations of the Cook Plant through its licensed life (2034 for Unit 1 and 2037 for Unit 2). The estimated cost of the LCM Project is $1.2 billion to be incurred through 2018, excluding AFUDC. As of June 30, 2014 , I&M has incurred costs of $439 million related to the LCM Project, including AFUDC.

In July 2013, the IURC approved I&M’s proposed project with the exception of an estimated $23 million related to certain items which the IURC stated I&M could seek recovery of in a subsequent base rate case. I&M will recover approved costs through an LCM rider which will be determined in semi-annual proceedings. The IURC authorized deferral accounting for costs incurred related to certain projects effective January 2012 to the extent such costs are not reflected in rates. In December 2013, the IURC issued an interim order authorizing the implementation of LCM rider rates effective January 2014, subject to reconciliation upon the issuance of a final order by the IURC. In May 2014, the IURC issued a final order approving the LCM rider rates that were implemented in January 2014.

In January 2013, the MPSC approved a Certificate of Need (CON) for the LCM Project and authorized deferral accounting for costs incurred related to the approved projects effective January 2013 until these costs are included in rates. In February 2013, intervenors filed appeals with the Michigan Court of Appeals objecting to the issuance of the CON as well as the amount of the CON related to the LCM Project.

If I&M is not ultimately permitted to recover its LCM Project costs, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. See “Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project (LCM Project)” section of Note 4 .

LITIGATION

In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in employment, commercial, environmental and regulatory litigation. Since it is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, we cannot predict the eventual resolution, timing or amount of any loss, fine or penalty. We assess the probability of loss for each contingency and accrue a liability for cases that have a probable likelihood of loss if the loss can be estimated. For details on our 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 2013 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.

Rockport Plant Litigation

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 plaintiff further alleges that the defendants’ actions constitute breach of the lease and participation agreement. The plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that the defendants breached the lease, must satisfy obligations related to installation of emission control equipment and indemnify the plaintiff. The New York court granted our motion to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Our motion to dismiss the case, filed in October 2013, is pending. We will continue to defend against the claims. We are unable to determine a range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

We are implementing a substantial capital investment program and incurring additional operational costs to comply with environmental control requirements. We will need to make additional investments and operational changes in response to existing and anticipated requirements such as CAA requirements to reduce emissions of SO ₂ , NO _x , PM and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from fossil fuel-fired power plants, proposals governing the beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion products and proposed clean water rules.

We are engaged in litigation about environmental issues, have been notified of potential responsibility for the clean-up of contaminated sites and incur costs for disposal of SNF and future decommissioning of our nuclear units. We, along with various industry groups, affected states and other parties have challenged some of the Federal EPA requirements in court. We are also engaged in the development of possible future requirements including the items discussed below and reductions of CO ₂ emissions to address concerns about global climate change. We believe that further analysis and better coordination of these environmental requirements would facilitate planning and lower overall compliance costs while achieving the same environmental goals.

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 2013 Annual Report. We 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 we are unable to recover the costs of environmental compliance, it would reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

Environmental Controls Impact on the Generating Fleet

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. We continue to evaluate the impact of these rules, project scope and technology available to achieve compliance. As of June 30, 2014 , the AEP System had a total generating capacity of 37,600 MWs, of which 23,700 MWs are coal-fired. We continue to refine the cost estimates of complying with these rules and other impacts of the environmental proposals on our generating facilities. Based upon our estimates, investment to meet these requirements ranges from approximately $3 billion to $3.5 billion through 2020. Several proposed regulations issued during 2014, including CO ₂ and Clean Water Act, are currently under review and we cannot currently predict the impact these programs may have on future resource plans or our existing generating fleet; however, the costs may be substantial. These amounts include investments to convert some of our coal generation to natural gas. If natural gas conversion is not completed, the units could be retired sooner than planned.

The cost estimates will change depending on the timing of implementation and whether the Federal EPA provides flexibility in the final rules. 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 our 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, we are continuing to evaluate the economic feasibility of environmental investments on nonregulated plants.

Subject to the factors listed above and based upon our continuing evaluation, we intend to retire the following plants or units of plants before or during 2016:

As of June 30, 2014 , the net book value of the AGR units listed above was zero. The net book value before cost of removal, including related material and supplies inventory and CWIP balances, of the regulated plants in the table above was $985 million.

In addition, we are in the process of obtaining permits and other necessary regulatory approvals for the conversion of KPCo's 278 MW Big Sandy Plant, Unit 1 to natural gas.  As of June 30, 2014 , the net book value before cost of removal, including related material and supplies inventory and CWIP balances, of Big Sandy Plant, Unit 1 was $99 million.

PSO received Federal EPA approval of the Oklahoma SIP, in February 2014, related to the environmental compliance plan for Northeastern Station, Unit 3.

Volatility in fuel prices, pending environmental rules and other market factors could also have an adverse impact on the accounting evaluation of the recoverability of the net book values of coal-fired units. For regulated plants that we may close early, we are seeking regulatory recovery of remaining net book values. To the extent existing generation assets and the cost of new equipment and converted facilities are not recoverable, it could materially reduce future net income and cash flows.

Clean Air Act Requirements

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 Federal EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in 2005 requiring specific reductions in SO ₂ and NO _x emissions from power plants. The Federal EPA issued the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in August 2011 to replace CAIR. The CSAPR was challenged in the courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order in 2011 staying the effective date of the rule pending judicial review. In 2012, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision vacating and remanding CSAPR to the Federal EPA with instructions to continue implementing CAIR until a replacement rule is finalized. That decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the decision in part and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Nearly all of the states in which our power plants are located are covered by CAIR. See "Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)" section below.

The Federal EPA issued the final maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for coal and oil-fired power plants in 2012. See “Mercury and Other Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Regulation” section below.

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) to address regional haze in federal parks and other protected areas. BART requirements apply to facilities built between 1962 and 1977 that emit more than 250 tons per year of certain pollutants in specific industrial categories, including power plants. CAVR will be implemented through individual SIPs or, if SIPs are not adequate or are not developed on schedule, through FIPs. The Federal EPA proposed disapproval of SIPs in a few states, including Arkansas. The Arkansas SIP was disapproved and the state is developing a revised submittal. In June 2012, the Federal EPA published revisions to the regional haze rules to allow states participating in the CSAPR trading programs to use those programs in place of source-specific BART for SO ₂ and NO _x emissions based on its determination that CSAPR results in greater visibility improvements than source-specific BART in the CSAPR states. This rule is being challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In 2009, the Federal EPA issued a final mandatory reporting rule for CO ₂ and other greenhouse gases covering a broad range of facilities emitting in excess of 25,000 tons of CO ₂ emissions per year. The Federal EPA issued a final endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles in 2009. The Federal EPA determined that greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources will be subject to regulation under the CAA beginning January 2011 and finalized its proposed scheme to streamline and phase-in regulation of stationary source CO ₂ emissions through the NSR prevention of significant deterioration and Title V operating permit programs through the issuance of final federal rules, SIP calls and FIPs. The Federal EPA has proposed to include CO ₂ emissions in standards that apply to new electric utility units and will consider whether such standards are appropriate for other source categories in the future. See "CO ₂ Regulation" section below.

The Federal EPA has also issued new, more stringent national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM, SO ₂ and is currently reviewing the NAAQS for ozone. States are in the process of evaluating the attainment status and need for additional control measures in order to attain and maintain the new NAAQS and may develop additional requirements for our facilities as a result of those evaluations. We cannot currently predict the nature, stringency or timing of those requirements.

Notable developments in significant CAA regulatory requirements affecting our operations are discussed in the following sections.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)

In 2011, the Federal EPA issued CSAPR. Certain revisions to the rule were finalized in 2012. CSAPR relies on newly-created SO ₂ and NO _x allowances and individual state budgets to compel further emission reductions from electric utility generating units in 28 states. Interstate trading of allowances is allowed on a restricted sub-regional basis. Arkansas and Louisiana are subject only to the seasonal NO _x program in the rule. Texas is subject to the annual programs for SO ₂ and NO _x in addition to the seasonal NO _x program. The annual SO ₂ allowance budgets in Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia were reduced significantly in the rule. A supplemental rule includes Oklahoma in the seasonal NO _x program. The supplemental rule was finalized in December 2011 with an increased NO _x emission budget for the 2012 compliance year. The Federal EPA issued a final Error Corrections Rule and further CSAPR revisions in 2012 to make corrections to state budgets and unit allocations and to remove the restrictions on interstate trading in the first phase of CSAPR.

Numerous affected entities, states and other parties filed petitions to review the CSAPR in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Several of the petitioners filed motions to stay the implementation of the rule pending judicial review. In 2011, the court granted the motions for stay. In 2012, the court issued a decision vacating and remanding CSAPR to the Federal EPA with instructions to continue implementing the CAIR until a replacement rule is finalized. The majority determined that the CAA does not allow the Federal EPA to “overcontrol” emissions in an upwind state and that the Federal EPA exceeded its statutory authority by failing to allow states an opportunity to develop their own implementation plans before issuing a FIP. The Federal EPA and other respondents filed petitions for rehearing but in January 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied all petitions for rehearing. The petition for further review filed by the Federal EPA and other parties in the U.S. Supreme Court

was granted in June 2013. In April 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision reversing in part the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The parties have filed motions to govern further proceedings. The Federal EPA has filed a motion to lift the stay and allow Phase I of CSAPR to take effect on January 1, 2015 and Phase II to take effect on January 1, 2017. Until the court acts on this motion, CAIR will remain in effect. Separate appeals of the Error Corrections Rule and the further revisions have been filed but no briefing schedules have been established. We cannot predict the outcome of the pending litigation.

Mercury and Other Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Regulation

In 2012, the Federal EPA issued a rule addressing a broad range of HAPs from coal and oil-fired power plants. The rule establishes unit-specific emission rates for mercury, PM (as a surrogate for particles of several nonmercury metals) and hydrogen chloride (as a surrogate for acid gases) for units burning coal on a site-wide 30-day rolling average basis. In addition, the rule proposes work practice standards, such as boiler tune-ups, for controlling emissions of organic HAPs and dioxin/furans. The effective date of the final rule was April 16, 2012 and compliance is required within three years. Petitions for administrative reconsideration and judicial review were filed. In 2012, the Federal EPA published a notice announcing that it would accept comments on its reconsideration of certain issues related to the new source standards, including clarification of the requirements that apply during periods of start-up and shut down, measurement issues and the application of variability factors that may have an impact on the level of the standards. The Federal EPA issued revisions to the new source standards consistent with the proposed rule, except the start-up and shut down provisions in March 2013. The Federal EPA is still considering additional changes to the start-up and shut down provisions. In April 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied all of the petitions for review of the April 2012 final rule.

The final rule contains a slightly less stringent PM limit for existing sources than the original proposal and allows operators to exclude periods of startup and shutdown from the emissions averaging periods. The compliance time frame remains a serious concern. We have obtained a one-year administrative extension at several units to facilitate the installation of controls or to avoid a serious reliability problem. In addition, the Federal EPA issued an enforcement policy describing the circumstances under which an administrative consent order might be issued to provide a fifth year for the installation of controls or completion of reliability upgrades. We remain concerned about the availability of compliance extensions, the inability to foreclose citizen suits being filed under the CAA for failure to achieve compliance by the required deadlines and the lack of coordination among the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards schedule and other environmental requirements.

CO ₂ Regulation

President Obama issued a memorandum to the Administrator of the Federal EPA directing the agency to develop and issue a new proposal regulating carbon emissions from new electric generating units. The new proposal was issued in September 2013 and requires new large natural gas units to meet 1,000 pounds of CO ₂ per MWh of electricity generated and small natural gas units to meet 1,100 pounds of CO ₂ per MWh. New coal-fired units are required to meet the 1,100 pounds of CO ₂ per MWh limit, with the option to meet the tighter limits if they choose to average emissions over multiple years. The proposal was published in the Federal Register in January 2014.

The Federal EPA was also directed to develop and issue a separate proposal regulating carbon emissions from modified and reconstructed electric generating units (EGUs) and to issue guidelines for existing EGUs before June 2014, to finalize those standards by June 2015 and to require states to submit revisions to their implementation plans including such standards no later than June 2016. The President directed the Federal EPA, in developing this proposal, to directly engage states, leaders in the power sector, labor leaders and other stakeholders, to tailor the regulations to reduce costs, to develop market-based instruments and allow regulatory flexibilities and “assure that the standards are developed and implemented in a manner consistent with the continued provision of reliable and affordable electric power.” The Federal EPA issued proposed guidelines establishing state goals for CO ₂ emissions from existing EGUs and proposed regulations governing emissions of CO ₂ from modified and reconstructed EGUs in June 2014 and comments are due in October 2014. The guidelines use a “portfolio” approach to reducing emissions from existing sources that includes

efficiency improvements at coal plants, displacing coal-fired generation with increased utilization of natural gas combined cycle units, expanding renewable resources and increasing customer energy efficiency. The standards for modified and reconstructed units include several options, including use of historic baselines or energy efficiency audits to establish source-specific CO ₂ emission rates or to limit CO ₂ emissions to no more than 1,900 pounds per MWh at larger coal units and 2,100 pounds per MWh at smaller coal units. These proposed regulations are currently under review. We cannot currently predict the impact these programs may have on future resource plans or our existing generating fleet, but the costs may be substantial.

In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision upholding, in all material respects, the Federal EPA’s endangerment finding, its regulatory program for CO ₂ emissions from new motor vehicles and its plan to phase in regulation of CO ₂ emissions from stationary sources under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V operating permit programs. In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a petition for rehearing. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Federal EPA was not compelled to regulate CO ₂ emissions from stationary sources under the Title V or PSD programs as a result of its adoption of the motor vehicle standards, but that sources otherwise required to obtain a PSD permit may be required to perform a Best Available Control Technology analysis for CO ₂ emissions if they exceed a reasonable level. The Federal EPA must undertake additional rulemaking to implement the court’s decision and establish an appropriate level.

Coal Combustion Residual Rule

In 2010, the Federal EPA published a proposed rule to regulate the disposal and beneficial re-use of coal combustion residuals, including fly ash and bottom ash generated at coal-fired electric generating units and also FGD gypsum generated at some coal fired plants.  The rule contains two alternative proposals. One proposal would impose federal hazardous waste disposal and management standards on these materials and another would allow states to retain primary authority to regulate the disposal of these materials under state solid waste management standards, including minimum federal standards for disposal and management. Both proposals would impose stringent requirements for the construction of new coal ash landfills and would require existing unlined surface impoundments to upgrade to the new standards or stop receiving coal ash and initiate closure within five years of the issuance of a final rule. In 2011, the Federal EPA issued a notice of data availability requesting comments on a number of technical reports and other data received during the comment period for the original proposal and requesting comments on potential modeling analyses to update its risk assessment. In 2013, the Federal EPA also issued a notice of data availability requesting comments on a narrow set of issues.

Various environmental organizations and industry groups filed a petition seeking to establish deadlines for a final rule. The Federal EPA opposed the petition and sought additional time to coordinate the issuance of a final rule with the issuance of new effluent limitations under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for utility facilities. In October 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a final order partially ruling in favor of the Federal EPA for dismissal of two counts, ruling in favor of the environmental organizations on one count and directing the Federal EPA to provide the court with a proposed schedule for completion of the rulemaking.  The court established December 19, 2014 as the Federal EPA’s deadline for publication of the rule. 

In February 2014, the Federal EPA completed a risk evaluation of the beneficial uses of coal fly ash in concrete and FGD gypsum in wallboard and concluded that the Federal EPA supports these beneficial uses.  Currently, approximately 40% of the coal ash and other residual products from our generating facilities are re-used in the production of cement and wallboard, as structural fill or soil amendments, as abrasives or road treatment materials and for other beneficial uses. Certain of these uses would no longer be available and others are likely to significantly decline if coal ash and related materials are classified as hazardous wastes. In addition, we currently use surface impoundments and landfills to manage these materials at our generating facilities. We will incur significant costs to upgrade or close and replace these existing facilities under the proposed solid waste management alternative. Regulation of these materials as hazardous wastes would significantly increase these costs. As the rule is not final, we are unable to determine a range of potential costs that are reasonably possible of occurring but expect the costs to be significant.

Clean Water Act Regulations

In 2011, the Federal EPA issued a proposed rule setting forth standards for existing power plants that will reduce mortality of aquatic organisms pinned against a plant’s cooling water intake screen (impingement) or entrained in the cooling water. Entrainment is when small fish, eggs or larvae are drawn into the cooling water system and affected by heat, chemicals or physical stress. In 2012, the Federal EPA issued additional Notices of Data Availability and requested public comments. The final rule was released by the Federal EPA in May 2014 and affects all plants withdrawing more than two million gallons of cooling water per day. The rule offers seven technology options to comply with the impingement standard and requires site-specific studies to determine appropriate entrainment compliance measures at facilities withdrawing more than 125 million gallons per day. Additional requirements may be imposed as a result of consultation with other federal agencies to protect threatened and endangered species and their habitats. Facilities with existing closed cycle recirculating cooling systems, as defined in the rule, are not expected to require any technology changes. Facilities subject to both the impingement standard and site-specific entrainment studies will typically be given at least three years to conduct and submit the results of those studies to the permit agency. Compliance timeframes will then be established by the permit agency through each facility’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for installation of any required technology changes, as those permits are renewed over the next five to eight years.

In addition, the Federal EPA issued an information collection request and is developing revised effluent limitation guidelines for electricity generating facilities. A proposed rule was signed in April 2013 with a final rule expected in September 2015. The Federal EPA proposed eight options of increasing stringency and cost for fly ash and bottom ash transport water, scrubber wastewater, leachate from coal combustion byproduct landfills and impoundments and other wastewaters associated with coal-fired generating units, with four labeled preferred options. Certain of the Federal EPA's preferred options have already been implemented or are part of our long-term plans. We continue to review the proposal in detail to evaluate whether our plants are currently meeting the proposed limitations, what technologies have been incorporated into our long-range plans and what additional costs might be incurred if the Federal EPA's most stringent options were adopted. We submitted detailed comments to the Federal EPA in September 2013 and participated in comments filed by various organizations of which we are members.

In April 2014, the Federal EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly issued a proposed rule to clarify the scope of the regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court cases and published the proposed rule in the Federal Register. The CWA provides for federal jurisdiction over “navigable waters” defined as “the waters of the United States.” This proposed jurisdictional definition will apply to all CWA programs, potentially impacting generation, transmission and distribution permitting and compliance requirements. Among those programs are: permits for wastewater and storm water discharges, permits for impacts to wetlands and water bodies and oil spill prevention planning. We agree that clarity and efficiency in the permitting process is needed. We are concerned that the proposed rule introduces new concepts and could subject more of our operations to CWA jurisdiction, thereby increasing the time and complexity of permitting. We will continue to evaluate the rule and its financial impact on the AEP System. We plan to submit comments and also participate in the preparation of comments to be filed by various organizations of which we are members.

Climate Change

National public policy makers and regulators in the 11 states we serve have diverse views on climate change. We are currently focused on responding to these emerging views with prudent actions, such as improving energy efficiency, investing in developing cost-effective and less carbon-intensive technologies and evaluating our assets across a range of plausible scenarios and outcomes. We are also active participants in a variety of public policy discussions at state and federal levels to assure that proposed new requirements are feasible and the economies of the states we serve are not placed at a competitive disadvantage.

While comprehensive economy-wide regulation of CO ₂ emissions might be achieved through future legislation, Congress has yet to enact such legislation. The Federal EPA continues to take action to regulate CO ₂ emissions under the existing requirements of the CAA.

Several states have adopted programs that directly regulate CO ₂ emissions from power plants. The majority of the states where we have generating facilities have passed legislation establishing renewable energy, alternative energy and/or energy efficiency requirements. We are taking steps to comply with these requirements.

Future federal and state legislation or regulations that mandate limits on the emission of CO ₂ would result in significant increases in capital expenditures and operating costs, which in turn, could lead to increased liquidity needs and higher financing costs. Excessive costs to comply with future legislation or regulations might force our utility subsidiaries to close some coal-fired facilities and could lead to possible impairment of assets. As a result, mandatory limits could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.

For additional information on climate change, other environmental issues and the actions we are taking to address potential impacts, see Part I of the 2013 Form 10-K under the headings entitled “Environmental and Other Matters” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

SEGMENTS

Our primary business is the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. Within our Vertically Integrated Utilities segment, we centrally dispatch generation assets and manage our 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.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, we changed the structure of our internal organization which resulted in a change in the composition of our reportable segments. In accordance with authoritative accounting guidance for segment reporting, prior period financial information has been recast in the financial statements and footnotes to be comparable to the current year presentation of reportable segments.

Our reportable segments and their related business activities are outlined below:

Vertically Integrated Utilities

Transmission and Distribution Utilities

AEP Transmission Holdco

Generation & Marketing

AEP CONSOLIDATED

Second Quarter of 2014 Compared to Second Quarter of 2013

Net Income increased from $339 million in 2013 to $391 million in 2014 primarily due to:

These increases were partially offset by:

Six Months Ended June 30, 2014 Compared to Six Months Ended June 30, 2013

Net Income increased from $703 million in 2013 to $952 million in 2014 primarily due to:

These increases were partially offset by:

Our results of operations are discussed below by operating segment.

Summary of KWh Energy Sales for Vertically Integrated Utilities

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 our eastern region have a larger effect on net income than changes in our western region due to the relative size of the two regions and the number of customers within each region.

Summary of Heating and Cooling Degree Days for Vertically Integrated Utilities

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

For the rate increases described above, $26 million of these increases relate to riders/trackers which have corresponding increases in expense items below.    

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

These increases were partially offset by:

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

For the rate increases described above, $50 million of these increases relate to riders/trackers which have corresponding increases in expense items below.

These increases were partially offset by: