Unassociated Document
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
[X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For The Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2012
OR
[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For The Transition Period from ____ to ____
|
Commission
|
|
Registrants; States of Incorporation;
|
|
I.R.S. Employer
|
|
File Number
|
|
Address and Telephone Number
|
|
Identification Nos.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
1-3525
|
|
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC. (A New York Corporation)
|
|
13-4922640
|
|
1-3457
|
|
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY (A Virginia Corporation)
|
|
54-0124790
|
|
1-3570
|
|
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY (An Indiana Corporation)
|
|
35-0410455
|
|
1-6543
|
|
OHIO POWER COMPANY (An Ohio Corporation)
|
|
31-4271000
|
|
0-343
|
|
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA (An Oklahoma Corporation)
|
|
73-0410895
|
|
1-3146
|
|
SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (A Delaware Corporation)
|
|
72-0323455
|
| |
|
1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus, Ohio 43215-2373
|
|
|
| |
|
Telephone (614) 716-1000
|
|
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrants (1) have filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrants were required to file such reports), and (2) have been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
|
|
Yes
|
X
|
|
No
|
|
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrants have submitted electronically and posted on their corporate websites, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrants were required to submit and post such files).
|
|
Yes
|
X
|
|
No
|
|
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether American Electric Power Company, Inc. is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
|
| |
|
Large accelerated filer
|
X
|
|
Accelerated filer
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-accelerated filer
|
|
|
Smaller reporting company
|
|
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Southwestern Electric Power Company are large accelerated filers, accelerated filers, non-accelerated filers or smaller reporting companies. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
|
| |
|
Large accelerated filer
|
|
|
Accelerated filer
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-accelerated filer
|
X
|
|
Smaller reporting company
|
|
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrants are shell companies (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
|
|
Yes
|
|
|
No
|
X
|
|
|
Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Southwestern Electric Power Company meet the conditions set forth in General Instruction H(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-Q and are therefore filing this Form 10-Q with the reduced disclosure format specified in General Instruction H(2) to Form 10-Q.
|
| |
|
|
Number of shares of common stock outstanding of the registrants at
April 26, 2012
|
| |
|
|
|
|
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
|
|
|
484,321,794
|
| |
|
|
($6.50 par value)
|
|
Appalachian Power Company
|
|
|
13,499,500
|
| |
|
|
(no par value)
|
|
Indiana Michigan Power Company
|
|
|
1,400,000
|
| |
|
|
(no par value)
|
|
Ohio Power Company
|
|
|
27,952,473
|
| |
|
|
(no par value)
|
|
Public Service Company of Oklahoma
|
|
|
9,013,000
|
| |
|
|
($15 par value)
|
|
Southwestern Electric Power Company
|
|
|
7,536,640
|
| |
|
|
($18 par value)
|
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
INDEX OF QUARTERLY REPORTS ON FORM 10-Q
March 31, 2012
| |
|
Page
Number
|
|
Glossary of Terms
|
|
i |
| |
|
|
|
Forward-Looking Information
|
|
iv |
| |
|
|
|
Part I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Items 1, 2 and 3 - Financial Statements, Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis and Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk: |
|
|
|
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and Subsidiary Companies:
|
|
|
| |
Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis
|
|
1
|
| |
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
24
|
| |
Index of Condensed Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
30
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Appalachian Power Company and Subsidiaries:
|
|
|
| |
Management’s Narrative Financial Discussion and Analysis
|
|
70 |
| |
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
| |
Index of Condensed Notes to Condensed Financial Statements of Registrant Subsidiaries
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Indiana Michigan Power Company and Subsidiaries:
|
|
|
| |
Management’s Narrative Financial Discussion and Analysis
|
|
|
| |
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
| |
Index of Condensed Notes to Condensed Financial Statements of Registrant Subsidiaries
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Ohio Power Company Consolidated:
|
|
|
| |
Management’s Narrative Financial Discussion and Analysis
|
|
|
| |
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
| |
Index of Condensed Notes to Condensed Financial Statements of Registrant Subsidiaries
|
|
106 |
| |
|
|
|
|
Public Service Company of Oklahoma:
|
|
|
| |
Management’s Narrative Financial Discussion and Analysis
|
|
|
| |
Condensed Financial Statements
|
|
|
| |
Index of Condensed Notes to Condensed Financial Statements of Registrant Subsidiaries
|
|
116 |
| |
|
|
|
|
Southwestern Electric Power Company Consolidated:
|
|
|
| |
Management’s Narrative Financial Discussion and Analysis
|
|
118
|
| |
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
121
|
| |
Index of Condensed Notes to Condensed Financial Statements of Registrant Subsidiaries
|
|
127 |
| |
|
|
|
|
Index of Condensed Notes to Condensed Financial Statements of Registrant Subsidiaries
|
|
128
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Combined Management’s Narrative Discussion and Analysis of Registrant Subsidiaries
|
|
175 |
| |
|
|
|
|
Item 4. Controls and Procedures
|
|
180 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Part II. OTHER INFORMATION
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Item 1.
|
Legal Proceedings
|
|
181
|
| |
Item 1A.
|
Risk Factors
|
|
181
|
| |
Item 2.
|
Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
|
|
183 |
| |
Item 4.
|
Mine Safety Disclosures
|
|
183
|
| |
Item 5.
|
Other Information
|
|
183 |
| |
Item 6.
|
Exhibits:
|
|
183 |
| |
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 10
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 12
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 31(a)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 31(b)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 32(a)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 32(b)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 95
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 101.INS
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 101.SCH
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 101.CAL
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 101.DEF
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 101.LAB
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 101.PRE
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SIGNATURE
|
|
|
184
|
|
This combined Form 10-Q is separately filed by American Electric Power Company, Inc., Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Southwestern Electric Power Company. Information contained herein relating to any individual registrant is filed by such registrant on its own behalf. Each registrant makes no representation as to information relating to the other registrants.
|
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
When the following terms and abbreviations appear in the text of this report, they have the meanings indicated below.
|
Term
|
|
Meaning
|
| |
|
|
|
AEGCo
|
|
AEP Generating Company, an AEP electric utility subsidiary.
|
|
AEP or Parent
|
|
American Electric Power Company, Inc., a utility holding company.
|
|
AEP Consolidated
|
|
AEP and its majority owned consolidated subsidiaries and consolidated affiliates.
|
|
AEP Credit
|
|
AEP Credit, Inc., a subsidiary of AEP which securitizes accounts receivable and accrued utility revenues for affiliated electric utility companies.
|
|
AEP East companies
|
|
APCo, I&M, KPCo and OPCo.
|
|
AEP System
|
|
American Electric Power System, an integrated electric utility system, owned and operated by AEP’s electric utility subsidiaries.
|
|
AEPEP
|
|
AEP Energy Partners, Inc., a subsidiary of AEP dedicated to wholesale marketing and trading, asset management and commercial and industrial sales in the deregulated Texas market.
|
|
AEPSC
|
|
American Electric Power Service Corporation, an AEP service subsidiary providing management and professional services to AEP and its subsidiaries.
|
|
AFUDC
|
|
Allowance for Funds Used During Construction.
|
|
AOCI
|
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income.
|
|
APCo
|
|
Appalachian Power Company, an AEP electric utility subsidiary.
|
|
APSC
|
|
Arkansas Public Service Commission.
|
|
BlueStar
|
|
BlueStar Energy Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned retail electric supplier for customers in Ohio, Illinois and other deregulated electricity markets throughout the United States.
|
|
BOA
|
|
Bank of America Corporation.
|
|
CAA
|
|
Clean Air Act.
|
|
CLECO
|
|
Central Louisiana Electric Company, a nonaffiliated utility company.
|
|
CO2
|
|
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
|
|
Cook Plant
|
|
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, a two-unit, 2,191 MW nuclear plant owned by I&M.
|
|
CSPCo
|
|
Columbus Southern Power Company, a former AEP electric utility subsidiary that was merged into OPCo effective December 31, 2011.
|
|
DCC Fuel
|
|
DCC Fuel LLC, DCC Fuel II LLC, DCC Fuel III LLC and DCC Fuel IV LLC, variable interest entities formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and leasing nuclear fuel to I&M.
|
|
DHLC
|
|
Dolet Hills Lignite Company, LLC, a wholly-owned lignite mining subsidiary of SWEPCo.
|
|
E&R
|
|
Environmental compliance and transmission and distribution system reliability.
|
|
EIS
|
|
Energy Insurance Services, Inc., a nonaffiliated captive insurance company.
|
|
ERCOT
|
|
Electric Reliability Council of Texas regional transmission organization.
|
|
ESP
|
|
Electric Security Plans, filed with the PUCO, pursuant to the Ohio Amendments.
|
|
ETT
|
|
Electric Transmission Texas, LLC, an equity interest joint venture between AEP and MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company Texas Transco, LLC formed to own and operate electric transmission facilities in ERCOT.
|
|
FAC
|
|
Fuel Adjustment Clause.
|
|
FASB
|
|
Financial Accounting Standards Board.
|
|
Federal EPA
|
|
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
|
|
FERC
|
|
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
|
|
FGD
|
|
Flue Gas Desulfurization or scrubbers.
|
|
FTR
|
|
Financial Transmission Right, a financial instrument that entitles the holder to receive compensation for certain congestion-related transmission charges that arise when the power grid is congested resulting in differences in locational prices.
|
|
GAAP
|
|
Accounting Principles Generally Accepted in the United States of America.
|
|
I&M
|
|
Indiana Michigan Power Company, an AEP electric utility subsidiary.
|
|
IGCC
|
|
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, technology that turns coal into a cleaner-burning gas.
|
|
Interconnection Agreement
|
|
An agreement by and among APCo, I&M, KPCo and OPCo, defining the sharing of costs and benefits associated with their respective generating plants.
|
|
IRS
|
|
Internal Revenue Service.
|
|
IURC
|
|
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.
|
|
KPCo
|
|
Kentucky Power Company, an AEP electric utility subsidiary.
|
|
KPSC
|
|
Kentucky Public Service Commission.
|
|
KWH
|
|
Kilowatthour.
|
|
LPSC
|
|
Louisiana Public Service Commission.
|
|
MISO
|
|
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator.
|
|
MMBtu
|
|
Million British Thermal Units.
|
|
MPSC
|
|
Michigan Public Service Commission.
|
|
MTM
|
|
Mark-to-Market.
|
|
MW
|
|
Megawatt.
|
|
NEIL
|
|
Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited insures domestic and international nuclear utilities for the costs associated with interruptions, damages, decontaminations and related nuclear risks.
|
|
NOx
|
|
Nitrogen oxide.
|
|
Nonutility Money Pool
|
|
Centralized funding mechanism AEP uses to meet the short term cash requirements of certain nonutility subsidiaries.
|
|
NSR
|
|
New Source Review.
|
|
OCC
|
|
Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma.
|
|
OPCo
|
|
Ohio Power Company, an AEP electric utility subsidiary.
|
|
OPEB
|
|
Other Postretirement Benefit Plans.
|
|
OTC
|
|
Over the counter.
|
|
PJM
|
|
Pennsylvania – New Jersey – Maryland regional transmission organization.
|
|
PM
|
|
Particulate Matter.
|
|
POLR
|
|
Provider of Last Resort revenues.
|
|
PSO
|
|
Public Service Company of Oklahoma, an AEP electric utility subsidiary.
|
|
PUCO
|
|
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
|
|
PUCT
|
|
Public Utility Commission of Texas.
|
|
Registrant Subsidiaries
|
|
AEP subsidiaries which are SEC registrants; APCo, I&M, OPCo, PSO and SWEPCo.
|
|
Risk Management Contracts
|
|
Trading and nontrading derivatives, including those derivatives designated as cash flow and fair value hedges.
|
|
Rockport Plant
|
|
A generating plant, consisting of two 1,300 MW coal-fired generating units near Rockport, Indiana, owned by AEGCo and I&M.
|
|
RTO
|
|
Regional Transmission Organization, responsible for moving electricity over large interstate areas.
|
|
Sabine
|
|
Sabine Mining Company, a lignite mining company that is a consolidated variable interest entity for AEP and SWEPCo.
|
|
SEC
|
|
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
|
|
SEET
|
|
Significantly Excessive Earnings Test.
|
|
SIA
|
|
System Integration Agreement, effective June 15, 2000, provides contractual basis for coordinated planning, operation and maintenance of the power supply sources of the combined AEP.
|
|
SNF
|
|
Spent Nuclear Fuel.
|
|
SO2
|
|
Sulfur dioxide.
|
|
SPP
|
|
Southwest Power Pool regional transmission organization.
|
|
SWEPCo
|
|
Southwestern Electric Power Company, an AEP electric utility subsidiary.
|
|
TCC
|
|
AEP Texas Central Company, an AEP electric utility subsidiary.
|
|
TNC
|
|
AEP Texas North Company, an AEP electric utility subsidiary.
|
|
Transition Funding
|
|
AEP Texas Central Transition Funding I LLC, AEP Texas Central Transition Funding II LLC and AEP Texas Central Transition Funding III LLC, wholly-owned subsidiaries of TCC and consolidated variable interest entities formed for the purpose of issuing and servicing securitization bonds related to Texas restructuring law.
|
|
Turk Plant
|
|
John W. Turk, Jr. Plant, a 600 MW coal-fired plant under construction in Arkansas that is 73% owned by SWEPCo.
|
|
Utility Money Pool
|
|
Centralized funding mechanism AEP uses to meet the short term cash requirements of certain utility subsidiaries.
|
|
VIE
|
|
Variable Interest Entity.
|
|
Virginia SCC
|
|
Virginia State Corporation Commission.
|
|
WPCo
|
|
Wheeling Power Company, an AEP electric utility subsidiary.
|
|
WVPSC
|
|
Public Service Commission of West Virginia.
|
| |
|
|
FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
This report made by AEP and its Registrant Subsidiaries contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Many forward-looking statements appear in “Item 7 – Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis” of the 2011 Annual Report, but there are others throughout this document which may be identified by words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “project,” “continue” and similar expressions, and include statements reflecting future results or guidance and statements of outlook. These matters are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Forward-looking statements in this document are presented as of the date of this document. Except to the extent required by applicable law, we undertake 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 economic climate and growth in, or contraction within, our service territory and changes in market demand and demographic patterns.
|
|
·
|
Inflationary or deflationary interest rate trends.
|
|
·
|
Volatility in the financial markets, particularly developments affecting the availability of capital on reasonable terms and developments impairing our ability to finance new capital projects and refinance existing debt at attractive rates.
|
|
·
|
The availability and cost of funds to finance working capital and capital needs, particularly during periods when the time lag between incurring costs and recovery is long and the costs are material.
|
|
·
|
Electric load, customer growth and the impact of retail competition, particularly in Ohio.
|
|
·
|
Weather conditions, including storms, and our ability to recover significant storm restoration costs through applicable rate mechanisms.
|
|
·
|
Available sources and costs of, and transportation for, fuels and the creditworthiness and performance of fuel suppliers and transporters.
|
|
·
|
Availability of necessary generating capacity and the performance of our generating plants.
|
|
·
|
Our ability to resolve I&M’s Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 restoration and outage-related issues through warranty, insurance and the regulatory process.
|
|
·
|
Our ability to recover regulatory assets in connection with deregulation.
|
|
·
|
Our ability to recover increases in fuel and other energy costs through regulated or competitive electric rates.
|
|
·
|
Our ability to build or acquire generating capacity, and transmission lines and facilities (including our ability to obtain any necessary regulatory approvals and permits) when needed at acceptable prices and terms and to recover those costs (including the costs of projects that are cancelled) through applicable rate cases or competitive rates.
|
|
·
|
New legislation, litigation and government regulation, including oversight of nuclear generation, energy commodity trading and new or heightened requirements for reduced emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, mercury, carbon, soot or particulate matter and other substances or additional regulation of fly ash and similar combustion products that could impact the continued operation and cost recovery of our plants and related assets.
|
|
·
|
A reduction in the federal statutory tax rate.
|
|
·
|
Timing and resolution of pending and future rate cases, negotiations and other regulatory decisions, including rate or other recovery of new investments in generation, distribution and transmission service and environmental compliance.
|
|
·
|
Resolution of litigation.
|
|
·
|
Our ability to constrain operation and maintenance costs.
|
|
·
|
Our ability to develop and execute a strategy based on a view regarding prices of electricity, natural gas and other energy-related commodities.
|
|
·
|
Changes in the creditworthiness of the counterparties with whom we have contractual arrangements, including participants in the energy trading market.
|
|
·
|
Actions of rating agencies, including changes in the ratings of our debt.
|
|
·
|
Volatility and changes in markets for electricity, natural gas and other energy-related commodities.
|
|
·
|
Changes in utility regulation, including the implementation of ESPs and the transition to market and expected legal separation for generation in Ohio and the allocation of costs within regional transmission organizations, including PJM and SPP.
|
|
·
|
Accounting pronouncements periodically issued by accounting standard-setting bodies.
|
|
·
|
The impact of volatility in the capital markets on the value of the investments held by our pension, other postretirement benefit plans, captive insurance entity and nuclear decommissioning trust and the impact on future funding requirements.
|
|
·
|
Prices and demand for power that we generate and sell at wholesale.
|
|
·
|
Changes in technology, particularly with respect to new, developing or alternative sources of generation.
|
|
·
|
Our ability to recover through rates or market prices any remaining unrecovered investment in generating units that may be retired before the end of their previously projected useful lives.
|
|
·
|
Our ability to successfully manage negotiations with stakeholders and obtain regulatory approval to terminate or amend the Interconnection Agreement.
|
|
·
|
Evolving public perception of the risks associated with fuels used before, during and after the generation of electricity, including nuclear fuel.
|
|
·
|
Other risks and unforeseen events, including wars, the effects of terrorism (including increased security costs), embargoes, cyber security threats and other catastrophic events.
|
|
The forward looking statements of AEP and its Registrant Subsidiaries speak only as of the date of this report or as of the date they are made. AEP and its Registrant Subsidiaries expressly disclaim any obligation to update any forward-looking information. For a more detailed discussion of these factors, see “Risk Factors” in the 2011 Annual Report and in Part II of this report.
|
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
MANAGEMENT’S FINANCIAL DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
|
Proposed June 2012 – May 2015 Ohio ESP
|
In March 2012, OPCo filed an application with the PUCO to approve a new ESP that includes a standard service offer (SSO) pricing. The SSO rates would be effective from June 2012 through May 2015. The ESP will transition OPCo to an auction-based SSO for capacity and energy by June 1, 2015. The ESP also proposed to collect the Phase-In Recovery Rider from June 2013 through December 2018. Further, the ESP proposed establishment of a non-bypassable Distribution Investment Rider through May 2015 to recover, with certain caps, post-August 2010 distribution investment. The filing also seeks establishment of a new non-bypassable Retail Stability Rider (RSR) to recover lost generation revenues to provide financial certainty and stability during the ESP transition period. The proposed RSR will be effective through May 2015. Hearings are scheduled at the PUCO for May 2012 and oral arguments are scheduled for July 3, 2012, which would delay the proposed implementation of rates. See “Ohio Electric Security Plan Filing” section of Note 2.
Ohio Customer Choice
In our Ohio service territory, various competitive retail electric service (CRES) providers are targeting retail customers by offering alternative generation service. As a result, in comparison to the first quarter of 2011, we lost approximately $42 million of gross margin. We are recovering a portion of lost margins through collection of capacity revenues from competitive CRES providers, off-system sales and new revenues from AEP Retail Energy Partners LLC, our CRES provider and member of our Generating and Marketing segment. AEP Retail Energy Partners LLC targets retail customers in Ohio, both within and outside of our retail service territory.
In March 2012, AEP Retail Energy Partners LLC completed the acquisition of BlueStar Energy Holdings, Inc. (BlueStar) and its independent retail electric supplier BlueStar Energy Solutions. BlueStar provides electric supply for retail customers in Ohio, Illinois and other deregulated electricity markets and also provides energy solutions throughout the United States, including demand response and energy efficiency services. BlueStar has been in operation since 2002.
Ohio Capacity Rate
In March 2012, in response to OPCo’s motion for relief, the PUCO ordered that competitive retail electric service (CRES) providers not qualifying for the Reliability Pricing Model (RPM) price, which is substantially below OPCo’s current capacity cost of approximately $355/MW day, will pay a capacity billing rate of $255/MW day through May 2012, at which time the capacity billing rate will revert to the RPM price. If the PUCO does not issue an order in the June 2012 – May 2015 ESP proceeding by May 31, 2012, OPCo will request an extension of the $255/MW day capacity rate. See “Ohio Electric Security Plan Filing” section of Note 2.
Possible Corporate Separation and Termination of the Interconnection Agreement
In March 2012, we filed a corporate separation plan with the PUCO for OPCo’s generation assets. Additional filings at the FERC and other state commissions related to corporate separation are expected to be filed in the future. If all regulatory approvals are received, APCo and KPCo will seek recovery of associated costs from customers through their regulated rates. Our results of operations related to generation in Ohio will be determined by our ability to sell power and capacity at a profit at rates determined by the prevailing market. If we are unable to sell power and capacity at a profit, it could reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition.
In December 2010, each of the members of the Interconnection Agreement gave notice to AEPSC and each other of its decision to terminate the Interconnection Agreement effective as of December 31, 2013 or such other date as ordered by the FERC. It is unknown at this time whether the Interconnection Agreement will be replaced by a new agreement among some or all of the members, whether individual companies will enter into bilateral or multi-party contracts with each other for power sales and purchases or asset transfers or if each company will choose to operate independently. Management intends to file an application to terminate the Interconnection Agreement with the FERC in the future. If any of the members of the Interconnection Agreement experience decreases in revenues or increases in costs as a result of the termination of the Interconnection Agreement and are unable to recover the change in revenues and costs through rates, prices or additional sales, it could reduce future net income and cash flows.
Customer Demand
In comparison to the first quarter of 2011, heating degree days in 2012 were down 32% and 50% in our eastern and western service territories, respectively. Retail margins also decreased due to the loss of retail customers in Ohio. See “Ohio Customer Choice” section above. Our weather-normalized industrial sales increased 2% in 2012, primarily due to a significant increase in production from Ormet, a large aluminum company, and lesser increases from other metals and refinery customers.
Cost Reduction Initiatives
In April 2012, we initiated a process to identify employee repositioning opportunities and efficiencies that will result in sustainable cost savings. The process will result in the redeployment of employees and involuntary severances. The process is expected to be completed by the end of 2012.
Securitization
Texas Securitization
As part of the Texas restructuring appeals, in December 2011, the PUCT approved an unopposed stipulation allowing TCC to recover $800 million, including carrying charges. We completed the securitization financing of $800 million in March 2012.
West Virginia Securitization
In March 2012, West Virginia passed securitization legislation, which allows the WVPSC to establish a regulatory framework to securitize certain deferred ENEC balances. APCo and WPCo anticipate filing, in the second quarter of 2012, a request for a financing order with the WVPSC pursuant to the securitization legislation. As of March 31, 2012, APCo’s ENEC under-recovery balance of $334 million was recorded in Regulatory Assets on the balance sheet. See “APCo’s and WPCo’s Expanded Net Energy Charge (ENEC) Filing” section of Note 2.
Regulatory Activity
2009 Fuel Adjustment Clause Audit
The PUCO selected an outside consultant to conduct the audit of the FAC for OPCo for the period of January 2009 through December 2009. In January 2012, the PUCO ordered that the remaining $65 million in proceeds from a 2008 coal contract settlement agreement be applied against OPCo’s under-recovered fuel balance. In April 2012, on rehearing, the PUCO ordered that the settlement credit only needed to reflect the Ohio retail jurisdictional share of the gain not already flowed through the FAC with carrying charges. OPCo expects to record the favorable effect of the rehearing order of approximately $30 million in the second quarter of 2012.
Significantly Excessive Earnings Test
In January 2011, the PUCO issued an order on the 2009 SEET filing, which resulted in a write-off of certain pretax earnings in 2010 and a subsequent refund to customers during 2011. In May 2011, the Industrial Energy Users-Ohio and the Ohio Energy Group (OEG) filed appeals with the Supreme Court of Ohio challenging the PUCO’s SEET decision. The OEG’s appeal seeks the inclusion of off-system sales (OSS) in the calculation of SEET which, if ordered, could require an additional refund of $22 million based on the PUCO approved SEET calculation. OPCo filed its 2010 SEET filing with the PUCO based upon the approach in the PUCO’s 2009 order. In the fourth quarter of 2011, OPCo provided a reserve based upon management’s estimate of the probable amount for a PUCO ordered SEET refund. OPCo is required to file its 2011 SEET filing with the PUCO in 2012 on a separate CSPCo and OPCo company basis. Management does not currently believe that there are significantly excessive earnings in 2011 for either CSPCo or OPCo. See “Ohio Electric Security Plan Filing” section of Note 2.
Indiana Base Rate Case
In September 2011, I&M filed a request with the IURC for a net annual increase in Indiana base rates of $149 million based upon a return on common equity of 11.15%. The request included an increase in depreciation rates that would result in a $25 million increase in annual depreciation expense. Final hearings are currently scheduled for June 2012. See “2011 Indiana Base Rate Case” section of Note 2.
Turk Plant
SWEPCo is currently constructing the Turk Plant, a new base load 600 MW coal generating unit in Arkansas, which is on target to be in service in the fourth quarter of 2012. SWEPCo owns 73% (440 MW) of the Turk Plant and will operate the completed facility. See “Turk Plant” section of Note 2.
Cook Plant
Unit 1 Fire and Shutdown
In September 2008, I&M shut down Cook Plant Unit 1 (Unit 1) due to turbine vibrations, caused by blade failure, which resulted in a fire on the electric generator. Repair of the property damage and replacement of the turbine rotors and other equipment cost approximately $400 million. Management believes that I&M should recover a significant portion of repair and replacement costs through the turbine vendor’s warranty, insurance and the regulatory process. Due to the extensive lead time required to manufacture and install new turbine rotors, I&M repaired Unit 1 and it resumed operations in December 2009. The installation of the new turbine rotors and other equipment occurred during the refueling outage of Unit 1 in the fall 2011. If the ultimate costs of the incident are not covered by warranty, insurance or through the related regulatory process or if any future regulatory proceedings are adverse, it would reduce future net income and cash flows and impact financial condition. See “Cook Plant Unit 1 Fire and Shutdown” section of Note 3.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
As a result of the nuclear plant situation in Japan following a March 2011 earthquake, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) initiated a review of safety procedures and requirements for nuclear generating facilities. This review could increase procedures and testing requirements, require physical modifications to the plant and increase future operating costs at the Cook Plant. The NRC is also looking into the fuel used at eleven reactors, including the units at the Cook Plant. Their concern relates to fuel temperatures if abnormal conditions are experienced. We continue to monitor this issue and respond to the NRC’s inquiry, as necessary. In addition to the review by the NRC, Congress could consider legislation tightening oversight of nuclear generating facilities. We are unable to predict the impact of potential future regulation of nuclear facilities.
Life Cycle Management Project
In April 2012, I&M filed a petition with the IURC for approval of the Cook Plant Life Cycle Management Project (LCM Project). The LCM Project consists of a group of capital projects that extend the operating lives of Unit 1 and 2 to 2034 and 2037, respectively, which is consistent with the recent extension of their operating licenses. The estimated cost of the LCM Project is $1.2 billion to be incurred through 2018, excluding AFUDC. I&M requested recovery of certain project costs, including interest, through a rider effective 2013. I&M intends to file with the MPSC in the second quarter of 2012. As of March 31, 2012, I&M has incurred $74 million related to the LCM Project. If I&M is not ultimately permitted to recover its incurred costs, it would reduce future net income and cash flows.
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 3 – Rate Matters, Note 5 – Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies and the “Litigation” section of “Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis” in the 2011 Annual Report. Additionally, see Note 2 – Rate Matters and Note 3 – 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
We are implementing a substantial capital investment program and incurring additional operational costs to comply with new 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 SO2, NOx, PM and hazardous air pollutants from fossil fuel-fired power plants, new 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 are also engaged in the development of possible future requirements including the items discussed below and reductions of CO2 emissions to address concerns about global climate change. We, along with various industry groups, affected states and other parties have challenged some of the Federal EPA requirements in court. The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation called the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (the TRAIN Act) that would delay implementation of certain Federal EPA rules and facilitate a comprehensive analysis of their impacts. The Senate is considering similar legislation. 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 Financial Discussion and Analysis” in the 2011 Annual Report. We will seek recovery of expenditures for pollution control technologies and associated costs from customers through rates in regulated jurisdictions. We should be able to recover certain of these expenditures through market prices in deregulated jurisdictions. If not, the costs of environmental compliance could 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 March 31, 2012, the AEP System had a total generating capacity of nearly 37,080 MWs, of which 23,900 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 coal-fired generating facilities. Based upon our estimates, investment to meet these proposed requirements ranges from approximately $6 billion to $7 billion between 2012 and 2020. These amounts include investments to convert 1,055 MWs of coal generation to natural gas capacity.
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 or federal implementation plans 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.
Subject to the factors listed above and based upon our continuing evaluation, we have given notice to the applicable RTO of our intent to retire the following plants or units of plants before or during 2015:
|
|
|
|
Generating
|
|
Company
|
Plant Name and Unit
|
|
Capacity
|
|
|
|
|
(in MWs)
|
|
APCo
|
Clinch River Plant, Unit 3
|
|
|
235 |
|
APCo
|
Glen Lyn Plant
|
|
|
335 |
|
APCo
|
Kanawha River Plant
|
|
|
400 |
|
APCo/OPCo
|
Philip Sporn Plant, Units 1-4
|
|
|
600 |
|
I&M
|
Tanners Creek Plant, Units 1-3
|
|
|
495 |
|
KPCo
|
Big Sandy Plant, Unit 1
|
|
|
278 |
|
OPCo
|
Conesville Plant, Unit 3
|
|
|
165 |
|
OPCo
|
Kammer Plant
|
|
|
630 |
|
OPCo
|
Muskingum River Plant, Units 1-4
|
|
|
840 |
|
OPCo
|
Picway Plant
|
|
|
100 |
|
SWEPCo
|
Welsh Plant, Unit 2
|
|
|
528 |
|
Total
|
|
|
|
4,606 |
Duke Energy Corporation, the operator of W. C. Beckjord Generating Station, has announced its intent to close the facility in 2015. OPCo owns 12.5% (54 MWs) of one unit at that station.
We are monitoring the potential impact that the proposed corporate separation of OPCo’s generation assets and the proposed termination of the Interconnection Agreement could have on the recoverability of OPCo's generation assets.
In April 2012, we reached an agreement in principle with the Federal EPA, the State of Oklahoma and other parties to retire one coal-fired unit of PSO’s Northeastern Station no later than 2016, install emission controls on the second coal-fired Northeastern unit and retire the second unit no later than 2026. These two coal-fired units have a combined generating capacity of 930 MWs. The parties are working toward a final settlement agreement.
Plans for and the timing of conversion of some of our coal units to natural gas, installing emission control equipment on other units and closure of existing units will be impacted by changes in emission requirements and demand for power. 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.
Scrubber Applications
Rockport Plant
I&M filed an application with the IURC seeking approval of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to retrofit its Rockport Plant. As part of I&M’s compliance plan to address new environmental requirements, I&M needs to install FGD and selective catalytic reduction equipment on one unit of the Rockport Plant. As a result of environmental requirements, I&M is evaluating options related to maturity of the lease for Rockport Plant Unit 2 in 2022. If I&M receives approval of a CPCN, I&M will file for cost recovery associated with the retrofit using the Clean Coal Technology Rider recovery mechanism. An IURC decision is expected in the third quarter of 2012.
Big Sandy Unit 2 FGD System
KPCo filed an application with the KPSC seeking approval of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to retrofit Big Sandy Unit 2 with a dry FGD system and to commence site construction activities on or about July 1, 2013. KPCo also filed for approval of its 2011 environmental compliance plan and related surcharge tariff for construction of certain facilities associated with the plan. The projected capital costs of the Big Sandy Unit 2 dry FGD system are approximately $955 million including certain preconstruction study costs and approximately $101 million of AFUDC. If approved, recovery of the Big Sandy Unit 2 dry FGD system would begin two months following the projected in-service date of July 2016. As of March 31, 2012, KPCo has incurred $25 million related to the project including $15 million associated with a previously studied wet FGD system. In March 2012, intervenors filed testimony which opposed the project. A decision is expected in second quarter of 2012. If KPCo is not ultimately permitted to recover its incurred costs, it would reduce future net income and cash flows.
Flint Creek Plant
In February 2012, SWEPCo filed a petition with the APSC seeking a declaratory order to go forward with the estimated $408 million FGD project at the Flint Creek Plant. As a joint owner of the Flint Creek Plant, SWEPCo’s portion of the FGD project costs is estimated at $204 million.
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 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 state implementation plans (SIPs) or, if SIPs are not adequate or are not developed on schedule, through federal implementation plans (FIPs). The Federal EPA proposed disapproval of SIPs in a few states, including Arkansas and Oklahoma. The Federal EPA finalized a FIP for Oklahoma that contains more stringent control requirements for SO2 emissions from affected units in that state. No action has been finalized in Arkansas.
The Federal EPA has also issued new, more stringent national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for SO2, NOx and lead, and is currently reviewing the NAAQS for ozone and PM. 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 August 2011, the Federal EPA issued CSAPR. Certain revisions to the rule were finalized in March 2012. CSAPR relies on newly-created SO2 and NOx 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 beginning in 2012. Arkansas and Louisiana are subject only to the seasonal NOx program in the rule. Texas is subject to the annual programs for SO2 and NOx in addition to the seasonal NOx program. The annual SO2 allowance budgets in Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia have been reduced significantly in the rule. Numerous affected entities, states and other parties filed petitions to review the CSAPR in the United States 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 December 2011, the court granted the motions for stay. Oral argument was heard in April 2012. A supplemental rule includes Oklahoma in the seasonal NOx program. The supplemental rule was finalized in December 2011, with an increased NOx emission budget for the 2012 compliance year. A separate appeal of the supplemental rule has been filed, but is being held in abeyance until the court issues a decision in the main CSAPR appeal.
The time frames and stringency of the required emission reductions, coupled with the lack of robust interstate trading and the elimination of historic allowance banks, pose significant concerns for the AEP System and our electric utility customers. We cannot predict the outcome of the pending litigation.
Mercury and Other Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Regulation
In February 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 nonmercury metal) 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.
The final rule contains a slightly less stringent PM limit 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. A one-year administrative extension may be available if the extension is necessary for 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 are concerned about the availability of compliance extensions and the inability to foreclose citizen suits being filed under the CAA for failure to achieve compliance by the required deadlines. We are participating in petitions for review filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by several organizations of which we are members.
Regional Haze
In March 2011, the Federal EPA proposed to approve in part and disapprove in part the regional haze SIP submitted by the State of Oklahoma through the Department of Environmental Quality. The Federal EPA proposed to approve all of the NOx control measures in the SIP and disapprove the SO2 control measures for six electric generating units, including two units owned by PSO. The Federal EPA proposed a FIP that would require these units to install technology capable of reducing SO2 emissions to 0.06 pounds per million British thermal units within three years of the effective date of the FIP. PSO submitted comments on the proposed action demonstrating that the cost-effectiveness calculations performed by the Federal EPA were unsound, challenging the period for compliance with the final rule and showing that the visibility improvements secured by the proposed SIP were significant and cost-effective. The Federal EPA finalized the FIP in December 2011 that mirrored the proposed rule but established a five-year compliance schedule. PSO filed a petition for review of the FIP in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and engaged in settlement discussions with the Federal EPA, the State of Oklahoma and other parties. In April 2012, we reached an agreement in principle that would provide for submission of a revised Regional Haze SIP requiring the retirement of one coal-fired unit of PSO’s Northeastern Station no later than 2016, installation of emission controls on the second coal-fired Northeastern unit and retirement of the second unit no later than 2026. The parties are working toward finalizing a settlement agreement.
CO2 Regulation
In March 2012, the Federal EPA issued a proposal to regulate CO2 emissions from new fossil fuel-fired electricity generating units. The proposed rule establishes a new source performance standard of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour of electricity generated, a rate that most natural gas combined cycle units can meet, but that is substantially below the emission rate of a new pulverized coal generator or an integrated gas combined cycle unit that uses coal for fuel. As proposed, the rule does not apply to new gas-fired stationary combustion turbines used as peaking units, does not apply to existing, modified or reconstructed sources, and does not apply to units whose CO2 emission rate increases as a result of the addition of pollution control equipment to control criteria or HAPs. The rule is not anticipated to have a significant immediate impact on the AEP System since it does not apply to existing units or units that have already commenced construction, like our Turk Plant. Once the proposal is published in the Federal Register, the Federal EPA intends to solicit comments for 60 days. We will be evaluating the proposal and preparing comments to submit to the Federal EPA.
Coal Combustion Residual Rule
In June 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. 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 beneficial re-use and 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 October 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.
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 and 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 April 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. The proposed standards affect all plants withdrawing more than two million gallons of cooling water per day and establish specific intake design and intake velocity standards meant to allow fish to avoid or escape impingement. Compliance with this standard is required within eight years of the effective date of the final rule. The proposed standard for entrainment for existing facilities requires a site-specific evaluation of the available measures for reducing entrainment. The proposed entrainment standard for new units at existing facilities requires either intake flows commensurate with closed cycle cooling or achieving entrainment reductions equivalent to 90% or greater of the reductions that could be achieved with closed cycle cooling. Plants withdrawing more than 125 million gallons of cooling water per day must submit a detailed technology study to be reviewed by the state permitting authority. We are evaluating the proposal and engaged in the collection of additional information regarding the feasibility of implementing this proposal at our facilities. We submitted comments on the proposal in July and August 2011. A final rule is expected to be signed by the Federal EPA Administrator by the end of July 2012. We are preparing to begin activities to implement the rule following its issuance and an analysis of the final requirements.
Global Warming
National public policy makers and regulators in the 11 states we serve have conflicting views on global warming. While comprehensive economy-wide regulation of CO2 emissions might be achieved through future legislation, Congress has yet to enact such legislation. The Federal EPA continues to take action to regulate CO2 emissions under the existing requirements of the CAA.
Several states have adopted programs that directly regulate CO2 emissions from power plants, but none of these programs are currently in effect in states where we have generating facilities. Certain of our states have passed legislation establishing renewable energy, alternative energy and/or energy efficiency requirements, including Michigan, Ohio, Texas and Virginia. We are taking steps to comply with these requirements.
Certain groups have filed lawsuits alleging that emissions of CO2 are a “public nuisance” and seeking injunctive relief and/or damages from small groups of coal-fired electricity generators, petroleum refiners and marketers, coal companies and others. We have been named in pending lawsuits, which we are defending. In March 2012, the court granted the defendants’ motion for dismissal of the suit in “Carbon Dioxide Public Nuisance Claims” on several grounds, including the doctrine of collateral estoppel and the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or their impact on our operations or financial condition. See “Carbon Dioxide Public Nuisance Claims” and “Alaskan Villages’ Claims” sections of Note 3.
Future federal and state legislation or regulations that mandate limits on the emission of CO2 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 global warming, other environmental issues and the actions we are taking to address potential impacts, see Part I of the 2011 Form 10-K under the headings entitled “Business – General – Environmental and Other Matters” and “Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis.”
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
SEGMENTS
Our primary business is the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. Within our Utility Operations 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.
While our Utility Operations segment remains our primary business segment, the advancement of an area of our business prompted us to identify a new reportable segment. Starting in the fourth quarter of 2011, we established our new Transmission Operations segment as described below:
Utility Operations
| |
·
|
Generation of electricity for sale to U.S. retail and wholesale customers.
|
| |
·
|
Transmission and distribution of electricity through assets owned and operated by our ten utility operating companies.
|
Transmission Operations
| |
·
|
Development, construction and operation of transmission facilities through investments in our wholly-owned transmission subsidiaries that were established in 2009 and our transmission joint ventures. These investments have PUCT-approved or FERC-approved returns on equity.
|
| |
·
|
In April 2012, AEP and Great Plains Energy (Great Plains) formed Transource Energy LLC (Transource). AEP and Great Plains own 86.5% and 13.5% of Transource, respectively. Transource will initially pursue transmission projects in PJM, SPP and MISO.
|
AEP River Operations
| |
·
|
Commercial barging operations that transport coal and dry bulk commodities primarily on the Ohio, Illinois and lower Mississippi Rivers.
|
Generation and Marketing
| |
·
|
Nonregulated generation in ERCOT.
|
| |
·
|
Marketing, risk management and retail activities in ERCOT, PJM and MISO.
|
The table below presents our consolidated Net Income by segment for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. We reclassified prior year amounts to conform to the current year’s presentation.
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
Utility Operations
|
|
$ |
384 |
|
|
$ |
374 |
|
|
Transmission Operations
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
AEP River Operations
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
Generation and Marketing
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
All Other (a)
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
Net Income
|
|
$ |
390 |
|
|
$ |
355 |
|
|
(a)
|
While not considered a reportable segment, All Other includes:
|
| |
·
|
Parent’s guarantee revenue received from affiliates, investment income, interest income and interest expense and other nonallocated costs.
|
| |
·
|
Forward natural gas contracts that were not sold with our natural gas pipeline and storage operations in 2004 and 2005. These contracts were financial derivatives which settled and expired in the fourth quarter of 2011.
|
| |
·
|
Revenue sharing related to the Plaquemine Cogeneration Facility which ended in the fourth quarter of 2011.
|
AEP CONSOLIDATED
First Quarter of 2012 Compared to First Quarter of 2011
Net Income increased from $355 million in 2011 to $390 million in 2012 primarily due to:
|
·
|
A decrease in other operation and maintenance expenses as a result of reduced spending.
|
|
·
|
The first quarter 2012 reversal of an obligation to contribute to Partnership with Ohio and Ohio Growth Fund as a result of the PUCO’s February 2012 rejection of OPCo’s modified stipulation.
|
|
·
|
Successful rate proceedings in our various jurisdictions.
|
|
·
|
A first quarter 2011 settlement of litigation with BOA and Enron.
|
|
·
|
An overall increase in net income from our Transmission Operations segment due to increased investments by ETT and our wholly-owned transmission subsidiaries.
|
These increases were partially offset by:
|
·
|
A decrease in weather-related usage.
|
|
·
|
The loss of retail customers in Ohio to various competitive retail electric service providers.
|
Average basic shares outstanding increased to 484 million in 2012 from 481 million in 2011. Actual shares outstanding were 484 million as of March 31, 2012.
Our results of operations are discussed below by operating segment.
UTILITY OPERATIONS
We believe that a discussion of the results from our Utility Operations segment on a gross margin basis is most appropriate in order to further understand the key drivers of the segment. Gross Margin represents total revenues less the related direct cost of fuel, including consumption of chemicals and emissions allowances and purchased power. We reclassified prior year amounts to conform to the current year’s presentation.
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
3,385 |
|
|
$ |
3,524 |
|
|
Fuel and Purchased Power
|
|
|
1,269 |
|
|
|
1,297 |
|
|
Gross Margin
|
|
|
2,116 |
|
|
|
2,227 |
|
|
Other Operation and Maintenance
|
|
|
755 |
|
|
|
850 |
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization
|
|
|
412 |
|
|
|
393 |
|
|
Taxes Other Than Income Taxes
|
|
|
211 |
|
|
|
209 |
|
|
Operating Income
|
|
|
738 |
|
|
|
775 |
|
|
Interest and Investment Income
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
Carrying Costs Income
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
Allowance for Equity Funds Used During Construction
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
Interest Expense
|
|
|
(217 |
) |
|
|
(232 |
) |
|
Income Before Income Tax Expense and Equity Earnings
|
|
|
562 |
|
|
|
580 |
|
|
Equity Earnings of Unconsolidated Subsidiaries
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Income Tax Expense
|
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
207 |
|
|
Net Income
|
|
$ |
384 |
|
|
$ |
374 |
|
|
Summary of KWH Energy Sales for Utility Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(in millions of KWHs)
|
|
|
Retail:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential
|
|
|
14,799 |
|
|
|
16,949 |
|
|
Commercial
|
|
|
11,265 |
|
|
|
11,646 |
|
|
Industrial
|
|
|
14,647 |
|
|
|
14,329 |
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
721 |
|
|
|
723 |
|
|
Total Retail (a)
|
|
|
41,432 |
|
|
|
43,647 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale
|
|
|
8,913 |
|
|
|
9,151 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total KWHs
|
|
|
50,345 |
|
|
|
52,798 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) Includes energy delivered to customers served by TCC and TNC.
|
|
Cooling degree days and heating degree days are metrics commonly used in the utility industry as a measure of the impact of weather on net income. 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 Utility Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(in degree days)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eastern Region
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual - Heating (a)
|
|
1,261
|
|
|
1,854
|
|
Normal - Heating (b)
|
|
1,751
|
|
|
1,739
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual - Cooling (c)
|
|
28
|
|
|
3
|
|
Normal - Cooling (b)
|
|
3
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Western Region
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual - Heating (a)
|
|
347
|
|
|
692
|
|
Normal - Heating (b)
|
|
581
|
|
|
579
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual - Cooling (d)
|
|
133
|
|
|
109
|
|
Normal - Cooling (b)
|
|
60
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
Eastern Region and Western Region heating degree days are calculated on a 55 degree temperature base.
|
|
(b)
|
Normal Heating/Cooling represents the thirty-year average of degree days.
|
|
(c)
|
Eastern Region cooling degree days are calculated on a 65 degree temperature base.
|
|
(d)
|
Western Region cooling degree days are calculated on a 65 degree temperature base for PSO/SWEPCo and a 70 degree temperature base for
|
|
|
TCC/TNC.
|
First Quarter of 2012 Compared to First Quarter of 2011
|
Reconciliation of First Quarter of 2011 to First Quarter of 2012
|
|
Net Income from Utility Operations
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter of 2011
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
374
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in Gross Margin:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Margins
|
|
|
|
|
|
(98)
|
|
Off-system Sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
|
Transmission Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
Other Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24)
|
|
Total Change in Gross Margin
|
|
|
|
|
|
(111)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in Expenses and Other:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Operation and Maintenance
|
|
|
|
|
|
95
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19)
|
|
Taxes Other Than Income Taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
|
Interest and Investment Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Carrying Costs Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Interest Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Total Change in Expenses and Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Tax Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter of 2012
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
384
|
The major components of the decrease in Gross Margin, defined as revenues less the related direct cost of fuel, including consumption of chemicals and emissions allowances, and purchased power were as follows:
|
·
|
Retail Margins decreased $98 million primarily due to the following:
|
| |
·
|
An $87 million decrease in weather-related usage primarily due to 32% and 50% decreases in heating degree days in our eastern and western service territories, respectively.
|
| |
·
|
A $54 million decrease attributable to Ohio customers switching to alternative competitive retail electric service (CRES) providers.
|
| |
·
|
A $39 million decrease due to the elimination of POLR charges, effective June 2011, in Ohio as a result of the October 2011 PUCO remand order.
|
| |
These decreases were partially offset by:
|
| |
·
|
Successful rate proceedings in our service territories which include:
|
| |
|
·
|
A $37 million rate increase for OPCo.
|
| |
|
·
|
A $22 million rate increase for APCo.
|
| |
|
·
|
A $16 million rate increase for I&M.
|
| |
|
·
|
For the rate increases described above, $20 million of these increases relate to riders/trackers which have corresponding increases in other expense items below.
|
|
·
|
Margins from Off-system Sales decreased $2 million primarily due to lower physical sales volumes and lower trading and marketing margins, partially offset by an increase in PJM capacity revenues.
|
|
·
|
Transmission Revenues increased $13 million primarily due to net rate increases in PJM and increased transmission revenues for Ohio customers who have switched to alternative CRES providers. The increase in transmission revenues related to CRES providers partially offsets lost revenues included in Retail Margins above.
|
|
·
|
Other Revenues decreased $24 million primarily due to an unfavorable regulatory order in Ohio and a decrease in gains on other miscellaneous sales.
|
Expenses and Other and Income Tax Expense changed between years as follows:
|
·
|
Other Operation and Maintenance expenses decreased $95 million primarily due to the following:
|
| |
·
|
A $41 million decrease due to the first quarter 2011 write-off of a portion of the West Virginia share of the Mountaineer Carbon Capture and Storage Product Validation Facility as denied for recovery by the WVPSC in March 2011.
|
| |
·
|
A $35 million decrease due to the first quarter 2012 reversal of an obligation to contribute to Partnership with Ohio and Ohio Growth Fund as a result of the PUCO’s February 2012 rejection of OPCo’s modified stipulation.
|
| |
·
|
A $34 million decrease in employee-related expenses.
|
| |
·
|
A $27 million decrease in plant outage and other plant operating and maintenance expenses.
|
| |
These decreases were partially offset by:
|
| |
·
|
A $33 million increase due to the first quarter 2011 deferral of 2009 costs related to storms and our 2010 cost reduction initiatives as allowed by the WVPSC in March 2011.
|
| |
·
|
An $11 million gain from the sale of land in January 2011.
|
|
·
|
Depreciation and Amortization expenses increased $19 million primarily due to the following:
|
| |
·
|
A $14 million increase due to shortened depreciable lives for certain OPCo generating plants effective December 2011.
|
| |
·
|
A $6 million increase due to increased amortization of TCC’s Securitized Transition Assets. The increase in TCC’s securitization related amortizations are offset within Gross Margin.
|
| |
·
|
A $6 million increase in depreciation as a result of APCo’s increase in depreciation rates in Virginia effective February 1, 2012.
|
| |
·
|
A $5 million increase in amortization primarily due to APCo’s current year amortization as a result of the Virginia E&R surcharge and the Virginia Environmental Rate Adjustment Clause, both effective February 2012.
|
| |
·
|
Overall higher depreciable property balances.
|
| |
These increases were partially offset by:
|
| |
·
|
A $9 million decrease due to the amortization of a portion of an Ohio distribution depreciation reserve as approved by the PUCO in the 2011 Ohio Distribution Base Rate Case.
|
|
·
|
Carrying Costs Income increased $5 million primarily due to the following:
|
| |
·
|
An $8 million increase due to the recording of debt carrying costs prior to TCC’s issuance of securitization bonds in March 2012.
|
| |
·
|
A $3 million increase from carrying charges on APCo’s Dresden Plant resulting from the Virginia Generation Rate Adjustment Clause and the West Virginia Expanded Net Energy Charge.
|
| |
These increases were partially offset by:
|
| |
·
|
An $8 million decrease primarily due to OPCo’s collections of carrying costs in the first quarter 2012 on phase-in FAC deferrals and certain distribution regulatory assets.
|
|
·
|
Interest Expense decreased $15 million primarily due to lower outstanding long-term debt balances and lower long-term interest rates.
|
|
·
|
Income Tax Expense decreased $28 million primarily due to a decrease in pre-tax book income and audit settlements for previous years.
|
TRANSMISSION OPERATIONS
First Quarter of 2012 Compared to First Quarter of 2011
Net Income from our Transmission Operations segment increased from $4 million in 2011 to $9 million in 2012 primarily due to an increase in investments by ETT and our wholly-owned transmission subsidiaries.
AEP RIVER OPERATIONS
First Quarter of 2012 Compared to First Quarter of 2011
Net Income from our AEP River Operations segment increased from $7 million in 2011 to $9 million in 2012 primarily due to a reduction in expenses as a result of reduced spending.
GENERATION AND MARKETING
First Quarter of 2012 Compared to First Quarter of 2011
Net Income from our Generation and Marketing segment decreased from a gain of $1 million in 2011 to a loss of $1 million in 2012 primarily due to the expiration of production tax credits in 2011 partially offset by increased gross margins at the Oklaunion Plant.
ALL OTHER
First Quarter of 2012 Compared to First Quarter of 2011
Net Income from All Other increased from a loss of $31 million in 2011 to a loss of $11 million in 2012 primarily due to a loss incurred in February 2011 related to the settlement of litigation with BOA and Enron.
AEP SYSTEM INCOME TAXES
First Quarter of 2012 Compared to First Quarter of 2011
Income Tax Expense decreased $89 million primarily due to a decrease in pretax book income, the unrealized capital loss valuation allowance related to a deferred tax asset associated with the settlement of litigation with BOA and Enron and audit settlements for previous years.
FINANCIAL CONDITION
We measure our financial condition by the strength of our balance sheet and the liquidity provided by our cash flows.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Debt and Equity Capitalization
|
|
|
March 31, 2012
|
|
|
December 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Long-term Debt, including amounts due within one year
|
|
$ |
17,320 |
|
|
|
52.1 |
% |
|
$ |
16,516 |
|
|
|
50.3 |
%
|
|
Short-term Debt
|
|
|
1,050 |
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
1,650 |
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
|
Total Debt
|
|
|
18,370 |
|
|
|
55.3 |
|
|
|
18,166 |
|
|
|
55.3 |
|
|
AEP Common Equity
|
|
|
14,856 |
|
|
|
44.7 |
|
|
|
14,664 |
|
|
|
44.7 |
|
|
Noncontrolling Interests
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Debt and Equity Capitalization
|
|
$ |
33,227 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
$ |
32,831 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
%
|
Our ratio of debt-to-total capital was unchanged from December 31, 2011 to March 31, 2012 at 55.3%. Long-term debt outstanding increased due to the March 2012 issuance of $800 million of securitization bonds.
Liquidity
Liquidity, or access to cash, is an important factor in determining our financial stability. We believe we have adequate liquidity under our existing credit facilities. At March 31, 2012, we had $3.25 billion in aggregate credit facility commitments to support our operations. Additional liquidity is available from cash from operations and a receivables securitization agreement. We are committed to maintaining adequate liquidity. We generally use short-term borrowings to fund working capital needs, property acquisitions and construction until long-term funding is arranged. Sources of long-term funding include issuance of long-term debt, sale-leaseback or leasing agreements or common stock.
Credit Facilities
We manage our liquidity by maintaining adequate external financing commitments. At March 31, 2012, our available liquidity was approximately $3 billion as illustrated in the table below:
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
Maturity
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
|
Commercial Paper Backup:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving Credit Facility
|
|
$
|
1,500
|
|
June 2015
|
|
|
Revolving Credit Facility
|
|
|
1,750
|
|
July 2016
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,250
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
286
|
|
|
|
Total Liquidity Sources
|
|
|
3,536
|
|
|
|
Less:
|
AEP Commercial Paper Outstanding
|
|
|
385
|
|
|
|
|
Letters of Credit Issued
|
|
|
189
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Available Liquidity
|
|
$
|
2,962
|
|
|
We have credit facilities totaling $3.25 billion to support our commercial paper program. The credit facilities allow us to issue letters of credit in an amount up to $1.35 billion.
We use our commercial paper program to meet the short-term borrowing needs of our subsidiaries. The program is used to fund both a Utility Money Pool, which funds the utility subsidiaries, and a Nonutility Money Pool, which funds the majority of the nonutility subsidiaries. In addition, the program also funds, as direct borrowers, the short-term debt requirements of other subsidiaries that are not participants in either money pool for regulatory or operational reasons. The maximum amount of commercial paper outstanding during the first three months of 2012 was $1.2 billion. The weighted-average interest rate for our commercial paper during 2012 was 0.47%.
Securitized Accounts Receivables
In 2011, we renewed our receivables securitization agreement. The agreement provides a commitment of $750 million from bank conduits to purchase receivables with an increase to $800 million for the months of July, August and September to accommodate seasonal demand. A commitment of $375 million with the seasonal increase to $425 million for the months of July, August and September expires in June 2012 and the remaining commitment of $375 million expires in June 2014. We intend to extend or replace the agreement expiring in June 2012 on or before its maturity.
Debt Covenants and Borrowing Limitations
Our revolving credit agreements contain certain covenants and require us to maintain our percentage of debt to total capitalization at a level that does not exceed 67.5%. The method for calculating outstanding debt and capitalization is contractually defined in our revolving credit agreements. Debt as defined in the revolving credit agreements excludes junior subordinated debentures, securitization bonds and debt of AEP Credit. At March 31, 2012, this contractually-defined percentage was 50.1%. Nonperformance under these covenants could result in an event of default under these credit agreements. At March 31, 2012, we complied with all of the covenants contained in these
credit agreements. In addition, the acceleration of our payment obligations, or the obligations of certain of our major subsidiaries, prior to maturity under any other agreement or instrument relating to debt outstanding in excess of $50 million, would cause an event of default under these credit agreements and in a majority of our non-exchange traded commodity contracts which would permit the lenders and counterparties to declare the outstanding amounts payable. However, a default under our non-exchange traded commodity contracts does not cause an event of default under our revolving credit agreements.
The revolving credit facilities do not permit the lenders to refuse a draw on any facility if a material adverse change occurs.
Utility Money Pool borrowings and external borrowings may not exceed amounts authorized by regulatory orders. At March 31, 2012, we had not exceeded those authorized limits.
Dividend Policy and Restrictions
The Board of Directors declared a quarterly dividend of $0.47 per share in April 2012. Future dividends may vary depending upon our profit levels, operating cash flow levels and capital requirements, as well as financial and other business conditions existing at the time. Our income derives from our common stock equity in the earnings of our utility subsidiaries. Various financing arrangements and regulatory requirements may impose certain restrictions on the ability of our utility subsidiaries to transfer funds to us in the form of dividends.
We have the option to defer interest payments on the AEP Junior Subordinated Debentures for one or more periods of up to 10 consecutive years per period. During any period in which we defer interest payments, we may not declare or pay any dividends or distributions on, or redeem, repurchase or acquire, our common stock.
We do not believe restrictions related to our various financing arrangements and regulatory requirements will have any significant impact on Parent’s ability to access cash to meet the payment of dividends on its common stock.
Credit Ratings
We do not have any credit arrangements that would require material changes in payment schedules or terminations as a result of a credit downgrade, but our access to the commercial paper market may depend on our credit ratings. In addition, downgrades in our credit ratings by one of the rating agencies could increase our borrowing costs. Counterparty concerns about the credit quality of AEP or its utility subsidiaries could subject us to additional collateral demands under adequate assurance clauses under our derivative and non-derivative energy contracts.
CASH FLOW
Managing our cash flows is a major factor in maintaining our liquidity strength.
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period
|
|
$ |
221 |
|
|
$ |
294 |
|
|
Net Cash Flows from Operating Activities
|
|
|
876 |
|
|
|
830 |
|
|
Net Cash Flows Used for Investing Activities
|
|
|
(792 |
) |
|
|
(613 |
) |
|
Net Cash Flows from (Used for) Financing Activities
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
114 |
|
|
Net Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
331 |
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period
|
|
$ |
286 |
|
|
$ |
625 |
|
Cash from operations and short-term borrowings provides working capital and allows us to meet other short-term cash needs.
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
$ |
390 |
|
|
$ |
355 |
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization
|
|
|
423 |
|
|
|
403 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
Net Cash Flows from Operating Activities
|
|
$ |
876 |
|
|
$ |
830 |
|
Net Cash Flows from Operating Activities were $876 million in 2012 consisting primarily of Net Income of $390 million and $423 million of noncash Depreciation and Amortization. Other changes represent items that had a current period cash flow impact, such as changes in working capital, as well as items that represent future rights or obligations to receive or pay cash, such as regulatory assets and liabilities. A significant change in other items includes the favorable impact of a decrease in accounts receivable and the unfavorable impact of an increase in fuel inventory due to the mild weather. Deferred Income Taxes increased primarily due to provisions in the Small Business Jobs Act and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Jobs Creation Act and an increase in tax versus book temporary differences from operations.
Net Cash Flows from Operating Activities were $830 million in 2011 consisting primarily of Net Income of $355 million and $403 million of noncash Depreciation and Amortization. Other changes represent items that had a current period cash flow impact, such as changes in working capital, as well as items that represent future rights or obligations to receive or pay cash, such as regulatory assets and liabilities. Significant changes in other items include the favorable impact of decreases in fuel inventory and receivables from customers and the unfavorable impact of reducing accounts payable. Deferred Income Taxes increased primarily due to provisions in the Small Business Jobs Act and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Jobs Creation Act, the settlement with BOA and Enron and an increase in tax versus book temporary differences from operations. In February 2011, we paid $425 million to BOA. $211 million of this payment was to settle litigation with BOA and Enron. The remaining $214 million to acquire cushion gas is discussed in Investing Activities below.
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
Construction Expenditures
|
|
$ |
(741 |
) |
|
$ |
(540 |
) |
|
Acquisitions of Nuclear Fuel
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
Acquisitions of Assets/Businesses
|
|
|
(85 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
Acquisition of Cushion Gas from BOA
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(214 |
) |
|
Proceeds from Sales of Assets
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
Net Cash Flows Used for Investing Activities
|
|
$ |
(792 |
) |
|
$ |
(613 |
) |
Net Cash Flows Used for Investing Activities were $792 million in 2012 primarily due to Construction Expenditures for new generation, environmental, distribution and transmission investments. Acquisitions of Assets/Businesses include our March 2012 purchase of BlueStar for $70 million.
Net Cash Flows Used for Investing Activities were $613 million in 2011 primarily due to Construction Expenditures for new generation, environmental, distribution and transmission investments. We paid $214 million to BOA for cushion gas as part of a litigation settlement.
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
Issuance of Common Stock, Net
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
Issuance of Debt, Net
|
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
324 |
|
|
Dividends Paid on Common Stock
|
|
|
(229 |
) |
|
|
(223 |
) |
|
Other
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
Net Cash Flows from (Used for) Financing Activities
|
|
$ |
(19 |
) |
|
$ |
114 |
|
Net Cash Flows Used for Financing Activities in 2012 were $19 million. Our net debt issuances were $193 million. The net issuances included issuances of $800 million securitization bonds, $275 million of senior unsecured notes and $67 million of notes payable offset by retirements of $191 million of senior unsecured and other debt notes, $50 million of pollution control bonds, $98 million of securitization bonds and a decrease in short-term borrowing of $600 million. We paid common stock dividends of $229 million. See Note 10 – Financing Activities for a complete discussion of long-term debt issuances and retirements.
Net Cash Flows from Financing Activities in 2011 were $114 million. Our net debt issuances were $324 million. The net issuances included $600 million senior unsecured notes, $421 million of pollution control bonds and an increase in short-term borrowing of $87 million offset by retirements of $214 million of senior unsecured and debt notes, $471 million of pollution control bonds and $92 million of securitization bonds. We paid common stock dividends of $223 million.
In April 2012, I&M retired $26 million of Notes Payable related to DCC Fuel.
In April 2012, I&M issued $110 million of variable rate Notes Payable related to DCC Fuel.
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
In prior periods, under a limited set of circumstances, we entered into off-balance sheet arrangements for various reasons including reducing operational expenses and spreading risk of loss to third parties. Our current guidelines restrict the use of off-balance sheet financing entities or structures to traditional operating lease arrangements that we enter in the normal course of business. The following identifies significant off-balance sheet arrangements:
|
|
March 31,
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
Rockport Plant Unit 2 Future Minimum Lease Payments
|
|
$ |
1,626 |
|
|
$ |
1,626 |
|
|
Railcars Maximum Potential Loss From Lease Agreement
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
For complete information on each of these off-balance sheet arrangements see the “Off-balance Sheet Arrangements” section of “Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis” in the 2011 Annual Report.
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION INFORMATION
A summary of our contractual obligations is included in our 2011 Annual Report and has not changed significantly from year-end other than the debt issuances and retirements discussed in the “Cash Flow” section above.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES, NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES
See the “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” section of “Management’s Financial Discussion and Analysis” in the 2011 Annual Report for a discussion of the estimates and judgments required for regulatory accounting, revenue recognition, the valuation of long-lived assets, the accounting for pension and other postretirement benefits and the impact of new accounting pronouncements.
ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
Future Accounting Changes
The FASB’s standard-setting process is ongoing and until new standards have been finalized and issued, we cannot determine the impact on the reporting of our operations and financial position that may result from any such future changes. The FASB is currently working on several projects including revenue recognition, contingencies, financial instruments, leases, insurance, hedge accounting and consolidation policy. We also expect to see more FASB projects as a result of its desire to converge International Accounting Standards with GAAP. The ultimate pronouncements resulting from these and future projects could have an impact on future net income and financial position.
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
Market Risks
Our Utility Operations segment is exposed to certain market risks as a major power producer and through its transactions in wholesale electricity, coal and emission allowance trading and marketing contracts. These risks include commodity price risk, interest rate risk and credit risk. In addition, we are exposed to foreign currency exchange risk because occasionally we procure various services and materials used in our energy business from foreign suppliers. These risks represent the risk of loss that may impact us due to changes in the underlying market prices or rates.
Our Generation and Marketing segment conducts marketing, risk management and retail activities in ERCOT, PJM and MISO. This segment is exposed to certain market risks as a marketer of wholesale and retail electricity. These risks include commodity price risk, interest rate risk and credit risk. These risks represent the risk of loss that may impact us due to changes in the underlying market prices or rates.
We employ risk management contracts including physical forward purchase and sale contracts and financial forward purchase and sale contracts. We engage in risk management of power, coal and natural gas and, to a lesser degree, heating oil and gasoline, emission allowance and other commodity contracts to manage the risk associated with our energy business. As a result, we are subject to price risk. The amount of risk taken is determined by the Commercial Operations and Finance groups in accordance with our established risk management policies as approved by the Finance Committee of our Board of Directors. Our market risk oversight staff independently monitors our risk policies, procedures and risk levels and provides members of the Commercial Operations Risk Committee (CORC) various daily, weekly and/or monthly reports regarding compliance with policies, limits and procedures. The CORC consists of our Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President of Commercial Operations and Chief Risk Officer. When commercial activities exceed predetermined limits, we modify the positions to reduce the risk to be within the limits unless specifically approved by the CORC.
The following table summarizes the reasons for changes in total mark-to-market (MTM) value as compared to December 31, 2011:
|
MTM Risk Management Contract Net Assets (Liabilities)
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utility
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operations
|
|
|
Marketing
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
Total MTM Risk Management Contract Net Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
at December 31, 2011
|
|
$ |
59 |
|
|
$ |
132 |
|
|
$ |
191 |
|
|
(Gain) Loss from Contracts Realized/Settled During the Period and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Entered in a Prior Period
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
Fair Value of New Contracts at Inception When Entered During the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period (a)
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
Net Option Premiums Received for Unexercised or Unexpired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Contracts Entered During the Period
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
Changes in Fair Value Due to Market Fluctuations During the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period (b)
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
Changes in Fair Value Allocated to Regulated Jurisdictions (c)
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
Total MTM Risk Management Contract Net Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
at March 31, 2012
|
|
$ |
72 |
|
|
$ |
130 |
|
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity Cash Flow Hedge Contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
Interest Rate and Foreign Currency Cash Flow Hedge Contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
Fair Value Hedge Contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Collateral Deposits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
Total MTM Derivative Contract Net Assets at March 31, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
247 |
|
|
(a)
|
Reflects fair value on primarily long-term structured contracts which are typically with customers that seek fixed pricing to limit their risk against fluctuating energy prices. The contract prices are valued against market curves associated with the delivery location and delivery term. A significant portion of the total volumetric position has been economically hedged.
|
|
(b)
|
Market fluctuations are attributable to various factors such as supply/demand, weather, etc.
|
|
(c)
|
Relates to the net gains (losses) of those contracts that are not reflected on the condensed statements of income. These net gains (losses) are recorded as regulatory liabilities/assets.
|
See Note 7 – Derivatives and Hedging and Note 8 – Fair Value Measurements for additional information related to our risk management contracts. The following tables and discussion provide information on our credit risk and market volatility risk.
Credit Risk
We limit credit risk in our wholesale marketing and trading activities by assessing the creditworthiness of potential counterparties before entering into transactions with them and continuing to evaluate their creditworthiness on an ongoing basis. We use Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s and current market-based qualitative and quantitative data as well as financial statements to assess the financial health of counterparties on an ongoing basis.
We have risk management contracts with numerous counterparties. Since open risk management contracts are valued based on changes in market prices of the related commodities, our exposures change daily. As of March 31, 2012, our credit exposure net of collateral to sub investment grade counterparties was approximately 5.5%, expressed in terms of net MTM assets, net receivables and the net open positions for contracts not subject to MTM (representing economic risk even though there may not be risk of accounting loss). As of March 31, 2012, the following table approximates our counterparty credit quality and exposure based on netting across commodities, instruments and legal entities where applicable:
|
|
|
|
Exposure
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
Net Exposure
|
|
|
|
Before
|
|
|
Counterparties
|
of
|
|
|
|
Credit
|
Credit
|
Net
|
>10% of
|
Counterparties
|
|
Counterparty Credit Quality
|
Collateral
|
Collateral
|
Exposure
|
Net Exposure
|
>10%
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions, except number of counterparties)
|
|
Investment Grade
|
|
$
|
637
|
|
$
|
4
|
|
$
|
633
|
|
|
2
|
|
$
|
240
|
|
Split Rating
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
Noninvestment Grade
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
11
|
|
No External Ratings:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Internal Investment Grade
|
|
|
316
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
316
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
178
|
|
|
Internal Noninvestment Grade
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
34
|
|
Total as of March 31, 2012
|
|
$
|
1,019
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
$
|
1,004
|
|
|
6
|
|
$
|
463
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total as of December 31, 2011
|
|
$
|
960
|
|
$
|
19
|
|
$
|
941
|
|
|
5
|
|
$
|
348
|
Value at Risk (VaR) Associated with Risk Management Contracts
We use a risk measurement model, which calculates VaR, to measure our commodity price risk in the risk management portfolio. The VaR is based on the variance-covariance method using historical prices to estimate volatilities and correlations and assumes a 95% confidence level and a one-day holding period. Based on this VaR analysis, as of March 31, 2012, a near term typical change in commodity prices is not expected to have a material effect on our net income, cash flows or financial condition.
The following table shows the end, high, average and low market risk as measured by VaR for the trading portfolio for the periods indicated:
VaR Model
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
Twelve Months Ended
|
|
March 31, 2012
|
|
December 31, 2011
|
|
End
|
|
High
|
|
Average
|
|
Low
|
|
End
|
|
High
|
|
Average
|
|
Low
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
$
|
-
|
We back-test our VaR results against performance due to actual price movements. Based on the assumed 95% confidence interval, the performance due to actual price movements would be expected to exceed the VaR at least once every 20 trading days.
As our VaR calculation captures recent price movements, we also perform regular stress testing of the portfolio to understand our exposure to extreme price movements. We employ a historical-based method whereby the current portfolio is subjected to actual, observed price movements from the last four years in order to ascertain which historical price movements translated into the largest potential MTM loss. We then research the underlying positions, price movements and market events that created the most significant exposure and report the findings to the Risk Executive Committee or the CORC as appropriate.
Interest Rate Risk
We utilize an Earnings at Risk (EaR) model to measure interest rate market risk exposure. EaR statistically quantifies the extent to which our interest expense could vary over the next twelve months and gives a probabilistic estimate of different levels of interest expense. The resulting EaR is interpreted as the dollar amount by which actual interest expense for the next twelve months could exceed expected interest expense with a one-in-twenty chance of occurrence. The primary drivers of EaR are from the existing floating rate debt (including short-term debt) as well as long-term debt issuances in the next twelve months. As calculated on debt outstanding as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the estimated EaR on our debt portfolio for the following twelve months was $24 million and $29 million, respectively.
|
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
|
|
|
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2012 and 2011
|
|
|
(in millions, except per-share and share amounts)
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
REVENUES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utility Operations
|
|
$ |
3,363 |
|
|
$ |
3,497 |
|
|
Other Revenues
|
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
233 |
|
|
TOTAL REVENUES
|
|
|
3,625 |
|
|
|
3,730 |
|
|
EXPENSES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel and Other Consumables Used for Electric Generation
|
|
|
1,053 |
|
|
|
1,056 |
|
|
Purchased Electricity for Resale
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
275 |
|
|
Other Operation
|
|
|
656 |
|
|
|
686 |
|
|
Maintenance
|
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
265 |
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization
|
|
|
423 |
|
|
|
403 |
|
|
Taxes Other Than Income Taxes
|
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
213 |
|
|
TOTAL EXPENSES
|
|
|
2,871 |
|
|
|
2,898 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME
|
|
|
754 |
|
|
|
832 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and Investment Income
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
Carrying Costs Income
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
Allowance for Equity Funds Used During Construction
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
Interest Expense
|
|
|
(229 |
) |
|
|
(242 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAX EXPENSE AND EQUITY EARNINGS
|
|
|
570 |
|
|
|
627 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Tax Expense
|
|
|
189 |
|
|
|
278 |
|
|
Equity Earnings of Unconsolidated Subsidiaries
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME
|
|
|
390 |
|
|
|
355 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO AEP SHAREHOLDERS
|
|
|
389 |
|
|
|
354 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements of Subsidiaries
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS ATTRIBUTABLE TO AEP COMMON SHAREHOLDERS
|
|
$ |
389 |
|
|
$ |
353 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF BASIC AEP COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING
|
|
|
483,828,101 |
|
|
|
481,144,270 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO AEP COMMON
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SHAREHOLDERS
|
|
$ |
0.80 |
|
|
$ |
0.73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF DILUTED AEP COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING
|
|
|
484,248,868 |
|
|
|
481,365,806 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO AEP COMMON
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SHAREHOLDERS
|
|
$ |
0.80 |
|
|
$ |
0.73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH DIVIDENDS DECLARED PER SHARE
|
|
$ |
0.47 |
|
|
$ |
0.46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Condensed Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements beginning on page 30.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
|
|
|
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2012 and 2011
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
NET INCOME
|
|
$ |
390 |
|
|
$ |
355 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS), NET OF TAXES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow Hedges, Net of Tax of $6 in 2012 and $1 in 2011
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Securities Available for Sale, Net of Tax of $1 in 2012 and $- in 2011
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Amortization of Pension and OPEB Deferred Costs, Net of Tax of $4 in 2012 and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$3 in 2011
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
|
|
|
388 |
|
|
|
363 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Comprehensive Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO AEP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SHAREHOLDERS
|
|
|
387 |
|
|
|
362 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements of Subsidiaries
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO AEP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMON SHAREHOLDERS
|
|
$ |
387 |
|
|
$ |
361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Condensed Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements beginning on page 30.
|
|
|
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
|
|
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
|
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2012 and 2011
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
AEP Common Shareholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid-in
|
|
Retained
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
Noncontrolling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
Amount
|
|
Capital
|
|
Earnings
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
Interests
|
|
Total
|
|
TOTAL EQUITY – DECEMBER 31, 2010
|
|
501
|
|
$
|
3,257
|
|
$
|
5,904
|
|
$
|
4,842
|
|
$
|
(381)
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
$
|
13,622
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of Common Stock
|
|
1
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
Common Stock Dividends
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(222)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
|
(223)
|
|
Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Other Changes in Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13)
|
|
SUBTOTAL – EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,416
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
354
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
355
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
TOTAL EQUITY – MARCH 31, 2011
|
|
502
|
|
$
|
3,263
|
|
$
|
5,916
|
|
$
|
4,973
|
|
$
|
(373)
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
$
|
13,779
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL EQUITY – DECEMBER 31, 2011
|
|
504
|
|
$
|
3,274
|
|
$
|
5,970
|
|
$
|
5,890
|
|
$
|
(470)
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
$
|
14,665
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of Common Stock
|
|
1
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
Common Stock Dividends
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(228)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
|
(229)
|
|
Other Changes in Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
SUBTOTAL – EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,469
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
389
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
390
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE LOSS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2)
|
|
TOTAL EQUITY – MARCH 31, 2012
|
|
505
|
|
$
|
3,280
|
|
$
|
5,998
|
|
$
|
6,050
|
|
$
|
(472)
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
$
|
14,857
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Condensed Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements beginning on page 30.
|
|
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
|
|
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
ASSETS
|
|
March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
$
|
286
|
|
$
|
221
|
|
Other Temporary Investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 amounts include $202 and $281, respectively, related to Transition Funding and EIS)
|
|
|
217
|
|
|
294
|
|
Accounts Receivable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
|
|
|
616
|
|
|
690
|
|
|
Accrued Unbilled Revenues
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
Pledged Accounts Receivable – AEP Credit
|
|
|
896
|
|
|
920
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
114
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts
|
|
|
(34)
|
|
|
(32)
|
|
|
|
Total Accounts Receivable
|
|
|
1,670
|
|
|
1,834
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
780
|
|
|
657
|
|
Materials and Supplies
|
|
|
638
|
|
|
635
|
|
Risk Management Assets
|
|
|
246
|
|
|
193
|
|
Accrued Tax Benefits
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
51
|
|
Regulatory Asset for Under-Recovered Fuel Costs
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
65
|
|
Margin Deposits
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
67
|
|
Prepayments and Other Current Assets
|
|
|
185
|
|
|
165
|
|
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
|
|
|
4,214
|
|
|
4,182
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generation
|
|
|
25,309
|
|
|
24,938
|
|
|
Transmission
|
|
|
9,211
|
|
|
9,048
|
|
|
Distribution
|
|
|
14,944
|
|
|
|