AEP’s 2021 ESG Strategy & Performance Report 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
2 
 
ABOUT THIS REPORT 
At AEP, we understand the importance of providing clear, accurate and consistent data and 
information in a timely manner. We have been reporting on our environmental, social and 
governance (ESG) performance for 15 years through AEP’s Corporate Accountability Report 
(CAR), which serves as the foundation for our sustainability disclosure. The 2021 ESG Strategy 
& Performance Report serves as a supplemental report to the CAR, demonstrating our 
commitment to reporting on our progress towards a responsible and sustainable energy future.  
This report includes AEP’s ESG strategy, governance structure, stakeholder engagement 
efforts, materiality assessment and ESG awards and recognition. In addition, it comprises of our 
ESG Data Center, which includes a three-year trend on 250+ of the most requested ESG 
metrics; our Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) report; GRI Report; and access 
to our Climate Impact Analysis Report – a TCFD report.  
For more information, please visit www.AEPsustainability.com   
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Sustainability & ESG Strategy…………………………………………………………………………..3 
AEP’s Sustainability Disclosure Journey………………………………………………………………3 
ESG Materiality…………………………………………………………………………………………...4 
Sustainability/ESG Governance………………………………………………………………………...5 
Stakeholder Engagement………………………………………………………………………………..6 
ESG Awards & Recognition……………………………………………………………………………..8 
ESG Data Center…………………………………………………………………………………………9 
2021 SASB Report………………………………………………………………………………………25 
2021 GRI Report………………………………………………………………………………………...37

AEP’s 2021 ESG Strategy & Performance Report 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
3 
 
SUSTAINABILITY & ESG STRATEGY 
 
Sustainability strategy and environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure are growing 
at an exponential pace, as the view of a company’s non-financial performance has become as 
important as its financial health. From the cost of capital, credit scores and insurance rates to 
how shareholders vote, stakeholders demand engagement, transparency and investment-grade 
ESG disclosure. Without question, the public health crisis and racial, social and civil unrest 
raised the stature of the “S” in ESG, prompting an expanded and more granular focus on how 
we manage AEP’s ESG performance, disclosure and governance. 
The prominence of material sustainability issues in 2020 created an ESG trifecta: climate 
change strategy, risks and management; human capital management, including diversity, equity 
and inclusion; and the resilience and management of a company’s strategy and business model. 
Awareness of how ESG impacts the full value-chain helps to strengthen and inform business 
decisions and strategies. ESG-informed decisions will be critical inputs as we reimagine a 
modern, clean and reliable energy future for our customers; as we rebuild dynamic and thriving 
economies; and as we develop a flexible, diverse and inclusive workforce for the future. 
Research has proven that companies with strong ESG performance realize short- and long-term 
value through enhanced growth, reduced costs, improved stakeholder relationships, increased 
employee satisfaction, and optimization of investment and capital expenditures. At AEP, we are 
integrating our sustainability practices and ESG initiatives into our corporate strategies and 
sharing our progress and goals with all of our stakeholders.

AEP’s 2021 ESG Strategy & Performance Report 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
4 
 
How We Manage ESG for AEP 
• Maintain ongoing monitoring of ESG material issues 
• Engage third-party research organizations to ensure use of accurate and timely data 
• Tell our story by engaging our stakeholders 
• Be transparent about AEP’s ESG performance 
• Integrate ESG into AEP’s strategy and risk monitoring 
• 
Position AEP as an industry and ESG/sustainability leader 
 
ESG MATERIALITY 
The evolution of corporate sustainability reporting and ESG disclosure has become more 
detailed and complex as stakeholders demand deeper levels of transparency. We live in a 
hyper-transparent and data-driven world – where ESG was once seen as qualitative by nature 
but is now becoming measureable – that drives demand for companies to enhance the quality, 
comparability and usefulness of their ESG disclosure. 
Materiality matters when disclosing performance. We cannot address every issue, nor should 
we. To most effectively manage our resources and focus on the material issues to our business 
and our stakeholders, we must focus on what is most relevant to our financial and nonfinancial 
success. That is what our stakeholders expect of us and how we are best able to respond to 
their needs and concerns. AEP defines material issues as those that reflect our most relevant 
environmental, social and governance impacts and contributions because they can: 
1. Have a significant impact on the company’s finances and/or operations; 
2. Have or may have a significant impact on the environment or society now or in the future; 
and/or 
3. Substantially influence the assessments, decisions and actions of our stakeholders. 
To identify material and emerging issues, in 2020 we conducted a materiality analysis using 
Datamaran, a cloud-based software platform that enables a comprehensive and data-driven 
process for monitoring external risks. The analysis monitors ESG issues in real-time, using 
analytics that give us insights into strategic, regulatory and reputational risks and opportunities 
that could impact AEP. This helps strengthen our understanding of ESG, geopolitical, 
technology and emerging issues, ensuring alignment with different internal and external 
stakeholder expectations while enhancing our in-house capabilities to monitor progress. 
This effort provides critical input to the development of our corporate strategy, risk management, 
and disclosure and engagement, as well as meets growing stakeholder expectations. This is 
especially important as new issues, such as COVID-19 and social justice, continue to emerge, 
highlighting the rapid pace of the changing ESG landscape. 
Purpose and value of a materiality assessment: 
• 
Identify ESG/sustainability trends and future risks 
• 
Target and improve disclosure and engagement 
• 
Reduce risk and exposure

AEP’s 2021 ESG Strategy & Performance Report 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
5 
 
• 
Ensure consistency across risk management, Board oversight and annual reporting 
Our integrated reporting is one way we demonstrate the connections between financial and 
nonfinancial performance, as well as our commitment to transparency. AEP has been reporting 
in this way for more than a decade. In addition, we participated in an industrywide priority issue 
assessment, led by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). This is the third such 
assessment at the industry level. EPRI’s deep understanding of the utility industry coupled with 
the vast research through their Priority Assessment complements our ESG materiality 
assessment by providing us with broader perspectives and insights. 
 
 
SUSTAINABILITY/ESG GOVERNANCE 
When stakeholders evaluate a company, one of the first things they look at is the strength of 
corporate governance. How and where sustainability fits into the corporate structure can reveal 
a company’s priorities. At AEP, we have strong governance to support sustainability and ESG 
performance, ensuring alignment with corporate purpose and strategy. Our approach to 
transparency links tangibles (such as financial capital and physical assets) with intangibles 
(such as reputation, brand, customer loyalty, risk management, trust and credibility) to show 
bottom line results and benefits. 
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to sustainability governance, but we believe it is 
fundamental to building and strengthening sustained business value. Strong governance 
ensures transparency, fairness and accountability, and it gives us a structured way to manage 
the challenges of a changing society. We are committed to strong governance practices that 
protect the long-term interests of our shareholders. 
Our Board of Directors works closely with our executive team to ensure we continually meet or 
exceed the highest standards of performance, innovation, ethics and service. In addition, the 
Board receives educational presentations from outside experts and board members attend 
educational sessions.

AEP’s 2021 ESG Strategy & Performance Report 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
6 
 
Through our Enterprise Sustainability Council (ESC) – with oversight from executive 
management and the Committee on Directors and Corporate Governance of the Board of 
Directors – we have clear guidance on our ESG responsibilities for sustainable business 
development. ESC members, who represent all aspects of our business, serve as strategic 
ambassadors, providing guidance and support to ensure the success of our sustainable 
development strategy. They do this by enabling 
integration of sustainability across the enterprise and 
in corporate strategy. 
The fast-paced growth of ESG investing prompted 
an expanded and more granular focus on how we 
manage our ESG performance and disclosure. We 
have a dedicated cross-functional ESG Team that 
meets monthly to monitor new and emerging ESG 
issues and develop strategies for responding to 
them. Because ESG performance is also a business 
risk, we added it to our risk summary report and are 
integrating it with our corporate strategy. 
In addition to the ESC and ESG Team, the 
Committee on Directors and Corporate Governance 
of the Board of Directors reviews the Corporate 
Accountability Report annually and monitors our 
ESG performance. The Committee provides 
feedback and develops the Board Statement 
supporting our commitment to sustainable business 
development and performance accountability. In 
addition, since 2010, AEP’s internal Audit Services 
team has conducted a limited review of selected company performance statements. The 
combined internal audit and governance from the Board of Directors, executive management 
and the ESC helps us ensure our disclosure undergoes a disciplined review and validation 
process. 
While these issues are discussed by the Board of Directors throughout the year, we report to the 
Committee on Directors and Corporate Governance on our sustainability-related activities at 
least twice per year. In addition, the Lead Director of AEP’s Board of Directors conducts annual 
outreach with our largest shareholders to engage with investors on important ESG matters. The 
Chairman of the Board also engages throughout the year with investors and other stakeholders. 
Learn more about AEP’s Corporate Governance as well as Climate Governance in our Climate 
Impact Analysis Report.  
 
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 
Listening to and engaging with customers, employees, investors, NGOs, communities, 
policymakers and other stakeholders is a priority for us. It allows us to hear perspectives we

AEP’s 2021 ESG Strategy & Performance Report 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
7 
 
might not have considered, mitigate risks, identify opportunities for collaboration, build stronger 
relationships, and arrive at consensus or shared motivation for meaningful outcomes. 
We engage with a variety of stakeholders on issues ranging from climate change, clean energy 
transition, energy efficiency, reliability and affordability, supply chain management and human 
capital management. New issues arose in 2020 in light of the global pandemic and racial, social 
and civil unrest. These issues especially focused on the environmental, social and governance 
(ESG) impacts, risks and management. 
Climate change risk, governance and strategy and a Just Transition continue to be a main focus 
as we transition to a low-carbon future. We recognize that climate change remains a significant 
risk and opportunity for which we are preparing to ensure we can deliver the clean, safe 
electricity expected by our customers. We engage with 
different stakeholders, including Climate Action 100+, 
to understand their concerns and address their 
questions about our carbon emission reduction goals 
and climate scenario analysis work. Our executive 
management team and Lead Director are also involved 
in our engagement with Climate Action 100+. During 
the course of developing our Climate Impact Analysis 
Report, we shared our plans with Climate Action 100+ 
as part of our ongoing engagement. The group reviewed our outline and provided valuable 
feedback. 
The path to a low-carbon energy future requires investments across our service territory and 
within our local neighborhoods. Developing and siting infrastructure, such as transmission 
facilities, is a complex, technical process that involves balancing disturbance to human, cultural 
and natural resources with a community’s need for reliable electricity. We have a team of 
specialists focused on transmission right-of-way acquisition, siting and community outreach 
dedicated to avoiding or minimizing impacts to people and the environment to the greatest 
extent possible. 
In 2020, the Transmission Right-of-Way team logged more than 97,000 interactions with 
landowners and acquired nearly 3,000 easements, using condemnation on less than 1% of the 
acquisitions. In addition, the Project Outreach team hosted a total of 32 open houses, including 
eight in-person and 24 virtually. The COVID-19 pandemic led the Project Outreach team to shift 
from its in-person events to virtual public involvement strategies. Virtual events enabled two-way 
communications with landowners and key stakeholders during the pandemic. The team utilized 
virtual and digital public engagement tools to ensure the same project information was 
presented virtually as it would be with a traditional in-person open house. Open houses, whether 
traditional or virtual, serve as an excellent opportunity for landowners and members of the 
community to learn about the project need and benefits, timeline, right-of-way practices, 
construction process and view interactive maps. 
We are committed to actively engaging with our stakeholders and appreciate two-way 
conversations that provide value to us and them. For a list of the stakeholders with whom we 
engage most frequently, the topics of interest and how we engage, please visit our Stakeholder 
Engagement section.

AEP’s 2021 ESG Strategy & Performance Report 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
8 
 
ESG AWARDS & RECOGNITION 
Forbes JUST 100 
AEP has been named to the Forbes JUST 100 2021 list, 
which recognizes companies that set the standard in 
commitment to their stakeholders. AEP earned the top spot 
for utilities and was the highest ranked utility in the “Workers” 
category. 
The JUST 100 is a list of America’s best corporate citizens. Forbes 
partnered with JUST Capital to assess 1,000 of the nation’s largest 
publicly traded companies and evaluated their treatment of workers and 
customers, community support, environmental impact and long-term 
value to shareholders. 
This year, JUST Capital expanded its methodology to include COVID-
19 policies and response. The new analysis includes hourly wages increases, paid sick leave, 
payment deferrals for customers, donations to support community relief and other data points. 
The ranking recognizes companies’ commitment to transparency on these issues. 
CRReporting Award 
AEP’s 2019 EEI ESG/Sustainability Report for Investors received 
the 2020 CR Reporting Award (CRRA’ 20) second runner-up for the 
Best Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Report 
by CorporateRegister.com. 
AEP’s report was among 152 entries across 11 categories. The 
awards recognize the very best in corporate sustainability reporting 
and are the world’s only independent global annual awards in this field. 
AEP is a founding member of the EEI-led ESG/Sustainability Report steering committee, which 
developed the voluntary ESG template in collaboration with a group of investors and third-party 
research organizations. 
Sustainable Tulsa 
For the second year in a row, Public Service Company of 
Oklahoma (PSO) was recognized for its sustainability efforts 
achieving gold level certification by Scor3card. Scor3card is an 
online sustainability tracking and assessment tool for organizations 
that want to track and improve their sustainability plans. 
Administered through Sustainable Tulsa, the Scor3card program 
sets a rigorous standard for sustainable activities that focus on 
engaging organizations around three areas of sustainability: people, 
profit and planet.

ESG DATA CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL & GOVERNANCE DATA
At AEP, we understand the importance of providing clear, accurate and consistent data and
information in a timely manner. AEP's ESG Data Center reflects our commitment to transparency
by proactively sharing data and information about our sustainability goals, strategy and
environmental, social and governance performance. This demonstrates that we are listening to
our stakeholders and addressing issues that are most relevant for our business.
We also map our sustainability performance to several frameworks, including: TCFD, SASB, CDP
and GRI Reports.
ESG Reports
The metrics and data points for the ESG Data Center are gathered from several sources, including GRI,
CDP and EEI ESG/Sustainability Report. The quality control and assurance process for the data center
differs from that of the 2020 Corporate Accountability Report, and is not included in the scope of the
internal audit process. 
ESG Data Center
ESG Data
ESG Data Glossary
Energy
Owned Generation Capacity (MW)
 
2018
2019
2020
Total Owned Nameplate Generation Capacity (MW)
25,447
25,490
25,490
Coal
14,056
13,230
13,230
Natural Gas
7,809
7,678
7,678
Nuclear
2,278
2,288
2,288
Total Renewable Energy Resources
1,304
2,294
2,294
Hydroelectric
853
853
853
Solar
190
229
229
Wind
261
1,212
1,212
Other Renewable
0
0
0

Owned Net Generation (MWh)
 
2018
2019
2020
Total Owned Net Generation
95,667,918
86,252,164
76,459,982
Coal
63,001,348
52,275,888
38,184,607
Natural Gas
13,318,616
13,953,693
14,175,228
Nuclear
17,610,815
16,157,850
18,268,937
Total Renewable Energy Resources
1,737,139
3,864,733
5,831,210
Hydroelectric
871,669
843,360
1,121,235
Solar
273,057
249,440
535,200
Wind
592,413
2,771,933
4,174,775
Other Renewable
0
0
0
 
Purchased Net Generation (MWh)
 
2018
2019
2020
Total Purchased Generation
-
20,130,649
18,069,220
Coal
-
5,441,084
4,410,801
Natural Gas
-
5,089,151
4,355,732
Nuclear
-
0
0
Total Renewable Energy Resources
-
9,600,414
9,302,687
Hydroelectric
-
174,893
234,869
Solar
-
12,512
11,825
Wind
-
9,413,009
9,055,993
Other Renewable
-
0
0
 
Total Net Generation (MWh)
 
2018
2019
2020
Total Net Generation for the Data Year
105,653,095
106,382,813
94,529,102

Coal
63,001,348
57,716,972
42,595,308
Natural Gas
13,318,616
19,042,844
18,530,960
Nuclear
17,610,815
16,157,850
18,268,937
Total Renewable Generation
11,722,316
13,465,147
15,133,897
Hydro
1,160,659
1,018,253
1,356,104
Solar
286,105
261,952
547,025
Wind
10,275,552
12,184,942
13,230,768
Other Renewable
0
0
0
 
Facility Energy Performance
 
2018
2019
2020
Facility energy consumption (KWh)
151,853,197
135,853,591
125,005,335
Emissions
Scope 1 Emissions Breakdown
Emissions from AEP owned facilities only
 
2018
2019
2020
CO  (MT)
78,058,873
58,447,520
44,369,322
SO  (Lbs)
137,291,386
104,466,589
65,521,727
SO  (MT)
62,274
47,385
29,720
NO  (Lbs)
99,830,243
78,809,057
52,889,173
NO  (MT)
45,282
35,747
23,990
Mercury (Lbs)
395
311
195
Mercury (kg)
179
141
89
 
Scope 1 Emissions GHG CO e
 
2018
2019
2020
CO  (MT)
74,661,649
64,157,262
48,807,820
2
2
2
x
x
2
2

CH  (MT CO e)
225,741
190,755
141,581
N O (MT CO e)
310,447
262,141
194,305
SF  (MT CO e)
163,408
166,149
127,667
Water
Total Water Withdrawal
* Beginning in 2020 total water withdrawal includes surface, ground, municipal and grey water sources (Comanche Plant)
 
2018
2019
2020
Total Water Withdrawal (Million Gallons per day)
4,178.13
3,985.25
4,019.68
Total Water Withdrawal (Million Gallons/ year)
1,526,912
1,454,614
1,471,202
Total Water Withdrawal (Billions of Liters/year)
5,773
5,506
5,569
Total Water Withdrawal (Millions of m3/year)
5,773
5,506
5,569
 
Water Withdrawal by Source Breakdown
 
2018
2019
2020
Surface Water Withdrawal (Million Gallons per day)
Excludes groundwater, municipal and Comanche Plant
4,171.74
3,979.37
4,014.89
Surface Water Withdrawal (Million Gallons/ year)
Excludes groundwater, municipal and Comanche Plant
1,524,579
1,452,470
1,469,450
Surface Water Withdrawal (m3/year)
Excludes groundwater, municipal and Comanche Plant
5,763,987,404
5,498,194,652
5,562,475,449
Groundwater (m3/year)
7,306,941
6,984,231
5,474,566
Other (m3/year)
Represents Comanche Plant withdrawal
1,525,092
1,138,772
1,156,019
 
Water Discharge
Water discharge data is derived from plant water balance diagrams and water withdrawal information. All water discharge represents surface water
discharge.
 
2018
2019
2020
Total Water Discharge (Million Gallons per day)
4,065
3,881
3,900
Total Water Discharge (Million Gallons/ year)
1,483,816
1,416,383
1,427,571
4
2
2
2
6
2

Total Water Discharge (Billions of Liters/year)
5,617
5,362
5,404
Total Water Discharge (m3/year)
5,616,852,871
5,361,588,479
5,403,941,000
 
Water Consumption
All water consumption is freshwater. Water consumption data is derived from plant water balance diagrams and water withdrawal information.
 
2018
2019
2020
Total Water Consumption (Million Gallons per day)
132.06
121.18
140.45
Total Water Consumption (Million Gallons/ year)
48,202
44,230
51,405
Total Water Consumption (billions of Liters/year)
182
167
195
Total Water Consumption (m3/year)
182,463,954
167,428,676
194,589,711
 
Water Intensity
Water intensity data is an average value across our steam electric system. AEP does not include renewable MWhs in intensity metrics because water
is not used in the renewable energy process. Plants that AEP only has partial ownership are also excluded as AEP does not control the way they
operate.
 
2018
2019
2020
Consumptive Water use intensity (gallons/Net MWh)
513
556
764
Consumptive Water use intensity (Billions of liters/Net MWh)
0.0000019
0.0000021
0.0000029
Non- Consumptive Water use intensity (gallons/Net MWh)
15,786
17,814
21,210
Non- Consumptive Water use intensity (Billions of liters/Net MWh)
0.0000598
0.0000674
0.0000803
Waste
Facility Waste Generation
Waste data does not include waste streams from competitive portion of business
 
2018
2019
2020
Recycled Paper and Office Waste (Lbs)
382,000
159,300
67,581
Recycled Scrap Metal Waste (Lbs)
50,500,000
28,950,000
40,685,181
Batteries Recycled (Lbs)
216,000
169,000
171,545
Electronic Waste Recycled( Lbs)
234,000
430,000
28,183

Light Bulbs Recycled (Lbs)
40,200
44,500
26,727
Recycled used Oil (Gallons)
400,500
725,500
273,994
 
Coal Combustion Products
 
2018
2019
2020
Total CCPs Generated (Tons)
4,846,451
4,123,466
2,908,761
Total CCPs Diverted from Landfill (Tons)
1,865,401
1,593,164
1,019,205
Total CCP Diverted from Landfill Percent
38%
39%
35%
Biodiversity
 
2018
2019
2020
Total acres of habitat protected, enhanced or restored that supports
natural habitat and biodiversity as required for mitigation
Habitat protected or restored as required by regulation includes wetland
and riparian habitat mitigations to meet Corps requirements, Habitat
Conservation Plans to meet USFWS requirements, New Source Review
Consent Decree Projects pursuant to a consent decree, and the
protection/enhancement of hydroelectric project shorelines and
reservoirs to meet FERC requirements.
/
/
28,520
Total acres of habitat protected, enhanced or restored that supports
natural habitat and biodiversity voluntarily
Voluntary protections include conservation areas set aside to protect
unique habitats, property donations to wildlife management and other
organizations, land sales to conservation organizations, enhancement of
cooling water reservoirs to create fish habitat, the reforestation of mine
lands and vegetation restoration beyond regulatory requirements, and the
establishment of tree plantations.
/
/
251,663
Economic
Financial Data
 
2018
2019
2020
Total Revenue
$16.2 Billion
$15.56 Billion
$14.92 Billion
Total Assets
$68.8 Billion
$75.9 Billion
$80.8 Billion
Total Annual Capital Expenditures/investments (nominal dollars)
$5,964 Million
$7,567 Million
$5,893 Million
 
Taxes Paid

2018
2019
2020
Local and State
$1,166 Million
$1,220 Million
$1,303 Million
Federal
$80 Million
$118 Million
$70 Million
 
Earnings Performance
 
2018
2019
2020
Earnings per Share (GAAP)
$3.90
$3.89
$4.44
Operating Earnings per Share
$3.95
$4.24
$4.44
Cash Dividends per Common Share
$2.53
$2.71
$2.84
 
Financial Disclosures
 
2018
2019
2020
AEP 10K Report Links (by year released)
2018 Report
2019 Report
2020 Report
Customer
Customers
 
2018
2019
2020
Residential
4,649,514
4,661,713
4,709,111
Commercial
709,606
712,800
721,900
Industrial
47,957
47,676
46,576
Other
30,304
30,177
30,183
Total
5,437,381
5,452,366
5,507,770
 
Customer Energy Efficiency Programs and Smart Meters
 
2018
2019
2020
Percent of total Electric Customers with smart meters
47%
56%
60%
Total Investment in Energy Efficiency Programs
/
$161,000,000
$150,299,080

Incremental Annual Electricity Savings from Energy Efficiency
Measures (MWh)
1,022,257
1,098,444
1,148,334
Annual Demand Savings (MW)
273
302
320
Avoided CO  Emissions (MT)
525,189
527,212
477,475
Number of residential customers that participate in Energy Efficiency
Programs
/
/
1,034,389
 
Customer Disconnects
Credit related service terminations were suspended during a portion of the year due to COVID-19 mitigation. This activity was initiated again in some
areas in a limited manner.
 
2018
2019
2020
Total Number of Customer Disconnects
/
487,943
265,204
Total Number of reconnects within 7 days
/
381,968
206,391
Total Number of residential Customer Disconnects
/
/
252,456
Residential Reconnects within 7 Days
/
/
197,963
 
Customer Assistance
 
2018
2019
2020
Residential Energy Affordably Transactions
401,280
428,057
580,182
Energy Assistance Funds Provided to Low-Income Customers
2020 data shows a 41% increase in government-sponsored energy
assistance programs compared to 2019 – in response to the pandemic.
$56.3 Million
$64.9 Million
$91.7 Million
Number of Agency Pledges made Online
/
27,221
24,286
Amount contributed to Agency Pledges for Energy Assistance
/
~$6.6 Million
~$6.7 Million
Grid Reliability
Grid Overview
 
2018
2019
2020
Transmission Lines
~40,000
~ 40,000
~ 40,000
Distribution Lines
~220,000
~ 221,000
~223,000
 
2

Reliability
 
2018
2019
2020
System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) (Minutes)
Includes major storm events
256.60
228.80
231.80
System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) - Number of
interruptions
Includes major storm events
1.53
1.41
1.47
Customer Average Interruption Duration index (CAIDI) (Minutes)
Includes major storm events
167.70
162.80
158.00
Customer Average Interruption Frequency (CAIFI) (Minutes)
Includes major storm events
2.16
2.00
2.19
Average System Availability Index (ASAI)
99.95%
99.96%
99.96%
Community Impact
Economic and Business Development
 
2018
2019
2020
Economic Development Contributions
$1,323,038
$2,597,874
$1,901,036
Jobs Supported by AEP's Economic and business Development
14,700
21,000
29,808
Amount Spent on Employee Wages
$2.3 Billion
$1.9 Billion
$1.8 Billion
 
Charitable Giving
 
2018
2019
2020
Total Charitable Giving
$25.5 Million
$29.6 Million
$38.5 Million
Percent of Charitable Giving by area of Focus
Education
32%
31%
32%
Community
17%
19%
14%
Hunger and Housing
12%
14%
14%
Safety and Health
11%
13%
11%
Arts and Culture
7%
6%
7%
Youth
9%
5%
4%
Covid-19
/
/
10%

Other
12%
11%
8%
Workforce
Employee Type
 
2018
2019
2020
Total Number of Employees
17,565
17,487
16,864
Number of full-time Employees
17,537
17,458
16,840
Number of part-time Employees
28
29
24
Total Number of Represented Employees
4,417
4,133
4,015
Total Number of Veteran Employees
1,814
1,742
1,706
Percent of Veteran Employees
10%
10%
10%
Total number of Professionals
5,598
5,743
5,600
Total number of Officials and Managers
3,288
3,326
3,175
Total number of executive/senior level officials
225
234
232
 
Employee Training and Education Assistance
 
2018
2019
2020
Total Hours of Employee Training (Hours)
In 2020, we experienced lower than normal training hours due to reduced
in-person, instructor-led training due to COVID-19 safety protocols. In
addition, we transitioned to virtual training where possible, which often
requires less time to complete.
1,007,153
1,130,628
775,500
Amount spent on Tuition Reimbursement
2,043,839
2,063,794
2,042,634
Total number of career development advancements
1,241
1,227
787
Percent of workforce receiving Career Development Reviews
/
70.38%
71.66%
 
Workforce Planning
 
2018
2019
2020
Planned Employee Leave or Retirement over the next 5 years
3,859
4,533
4,275
Employee Turnover Rate
6.80%
8.68%
8.56%

Total Transmission and Distribution Apprentices
/
/
807
Total co-op students, interns and high school interns
/
/
50
 
Workforce Demographics
 
2018
2019
2020
Traditionalists (1945 and Before)
<1%
<1%
<1%
Baby Boomers (1946-1964)
36%
31%
27%
Generation X (1965-1980)
35%
36%
37%
Millennials (1981-1996)
28%
32%
34%
Generation Z (1997 and Beyond)
<1%
<1%
1%
Safety & Health
Employee Metrics
 
2018
2019
2020
Employee DART Rate
0.393
0.4120
0.310
Total Employee Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR)
0.672
0.673
0.576
Employee Lost Time Incident Rate (LTIR)
0.310
0.329
0.245
Employee Severity Rate
17.568
22.719
15.284
Total Employee OSHA Recordable Events
/
129
106
Employee Fatalities
1
1
0
 
Contractor Metrics
AEP Contractors includes Forestry
 
2018
2019
2020
Contractor DART Rate
0.507
0.544
0.410
Total Contractor Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR)
/
/
0.927
Contractor Lost Time Incident Rate (LTIR)
/
/
0.246
Total Contractor OSHA Recordable Events
/
225
147

Employee and Contractor Metrics
AEP Contractors includes Forestry
 
2018
2019
2020
Employee and Contractor DART Rate
0.446
0.477
0.356
Combined Employee & Contractor DART Events
161
178
122
Public Metrics
 
2018
2019
2020
Public Fatalities due to electrical contacts
6
4
2
 
Diversity & Inclusion
Workforce Diversity
 
2018
2019
2020
Total Female Employees
3,409
3,454
3,325
Total percent of Female Employees
19%
20%
20%
Number of Female Professionals
1,503
1,578
1,535
Number of Female Officials and Managers
494
543
538
Number of Female employees in an Executive/Senior level position
36
40
44
Percent of workforce receiving Career Development Reviews for
female employees
/
/
90%
Number of development advancements for female employees
288
250
175
Total Minority Employees
3,127
3,233
3,187
Total percent of minority Employees
18%
18%
19%
Number of Minority Professionals
1,062
1,128
1,140
Number of Minority Officials and Managers
384
419
419
Number of Minority employees in an Executive/Senior level position
22
25
28
Number of development advancements for minority employees
192
244
156

Supplier Diversity
 
2018
2019
2020
Total Supplier Spend (Billions)
$6.9 Billion
$6.8 Billion
$6.5 Billion
Diverse Supplier Spend (Millions)
$365 Million
$401 Million
$653 Million
"Local Based Supplier Spend (Billions)
*The term “locally” is used to
describe businesses registered in the traditional 11 states in which
AEP operates."
$3.4 Billion
$3.3 Billion
$3.4 Billion
Small Business Supplier Spend (Millions)
$971 Million
$882 Million
$993 Million
Percentage of total corporate spend on Locally based suppliers (as a
percent of total spend)
48%
49%
53%
Percent procurement spend on goods and services on diverse
suppliers (as a percent of total managed spend)
6.30%
7.40%
10.17%
percentage total corporate spend on goods and services from small
businesses (as a percent of total spend)
14%
13%
15%
Governance
Governance Overview
2021 data as of April 20, 2021- post annual meeting
 
2018
2019
2020
2021
Board Meetings Held
7
7
7
7
Average Board attendance
98%
97%
97%
100%
Total number on the Board of Directors
12
13
13
12
Number of independent Directors
11
12
12
11
Independent CEO and Lead Director
no
no
no
no
 
Director Gender
 
2018
2019
2020
2021
Men
9
9
9
8
Woman
3
4
4
4
 
Director Age

2018
2019
2020
2021
50s
2
2
3
3
60s
8
9
6
7
70s
2
2
4
2
Board Average Age
64
65
66
64
 
Director Tenure
 
2018
2019
2020
2021
0-5 years
4
4
2
3
6-10 years
4
4
7
6
11-15 years
4
4
4
3
Average years of Tenure
8
9
8
8
 
Director Ethnic Diversity
 
2018
2019
2020
2021
White
10
11
11
9
Hispanic
1
1
2
2
African American
0
1
0
1
Other
0
0
0
0
Governance Disclosures
Proxy Statement
AEP's Principles of Corporate Governance
AEP Director Independence Standards
AEP Bylaws
AEP's Certificate of Incorporation
AEP Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
Criteria for Evaluating Directors
AEP Principles of Business Conduct
AEP Supplier Code of Conduct
Facts about AEP's Board
AEP Political Engagement Policy
AEP Anti-Corruption Policy
Consideration of Candidates for Director Recommended by Shareholders
Board Policy on Recouping Executive Compensation
Related person Transaction Approval Policy
Policy and Disclosures

Publicly Available Policies and Disclosures
Anti-Corruption Policy
AEP Political Engagement Policy
AEP's Insider Trading Policy
Related Person Transaction Approval Policy
Environment, Safety and Health Policy
AEP's Annual Report of Corporate Political & Social Welfare Organization Contributions and Trade Association Lobbying
Internal Policies
Sexual Harassment Policy
Anti-Discrimination Policy
Safety & Health Policy
AEP's PII Data Privacy Protection Policy
AEP's Prohibition Against Pornography and Offensive Material Policy
AEP's Anti Fraud Policy
AEP's Whistle Blower Protection Policy
To help ensure employee safety and security, many AEP policies are internal policies only. All employees have access to all policies through the AEP
intranet database.
Sustainability Disclosures
GRI
CDP Water
CDP Climate
TCFD
SASB Report
Supply Chain Management
ESG Strategy and Performance Report
EEI ESG/Sustainability Report
AEP Sustainability Goals

AEP’S 2021
SUSTAINABILITY ACCOUNTING 
STANDARDS BOARD (SASB) REPORT

1 
 
2021 SASB Report 
The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) voluntary reporting framework is used as 
the basis for sustainability reporting across multiple sectors. The SASB framework is designed to 
enable disclosure of company data and information in a manner that makes it decision-useful for 
investors and comparable with other companies within a given sector.   
This year marks AEP’s second year mapping our disclosure to the SASB Standards for Electric 
Utilities & Power Generators. Our response reflects year-end 2020 performance data. Our SASB 
report is mapped to our comprehensive 2021 Corporate Accountability Report and ESG Data 
Center – which serves as our foundation for all sustainability and ESG-related reporting.  
 
For more information contact:  
Sandy Nessing  
Managing Director, Corporate Sustainability  
American Electric Power  
smnessing@aep.com  
Melissa Tominack  
Manager, Corporate Sustainability  
American Electric Power  
matominack@aep.com  
 
Madeline Moses 
Corporate Sustainability Coordinator Associate 
American Electric Power 
mjmoses@aep.com

2 
 
2021 AEP SASB Responses 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Energy Resource Planning 
IF-EU-110a.1  
(1) Gross global Scope 1 emissions, percentage covered under  
(2) emissions-limiting regulations, and  
(3) emissions-reporting regulations 
 
AEP Response: 
ESG Data Center: Emissions Section 
AEP’s Climate Impact Analysis 
 
IF-EU-110a.2 
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with power deliveries 
AEP Response: 
 
Electric Company  
State 
CO2 Lbs/MWh 
AEP (Parent Company)1 
-- 
1,211 
AEP-Ohio2 
OH 
1,166 
AEP-Appalachian Power3 
VA/WV 
1,526 
AEP-Indiana Michigan 
Power4 
IN/MI 
464 
AEP-Kingsport Power 
TN 
1,032 
AEP-Wheeling Power 
WV 
1,570 
AEP-Public Service 
Company of Oklahoma5 
OK 
1,248 
AEP-Southwest Electric 
Power Company 
AR/LA/TX 
1,496 
AEP-Kentucky Power6 
KY 
1,483 
Notes: 
- Rates shown are in CO2 Lbs./MWh  
- Competitive Businesses not included: AEP Generation Resources, AEP Energy Partners (AEP Texas/TNC), AEP 
Renewables, AEP Onsite Partners 
1. Includes energy furnished without charge in electricity delivered from purchased power (column G) (power 
purchased directly by customers from other providers) 
2. AEP Ohio purchased generation is to service Ohio customers that have not chosen an alternative supplier. 
3. APCo had specified products. MWh's and emission rate are effected by REC activity. 
4. I&M data includes their 70% take of Rockport 2 based on AEP Generation Co. FERC Form 1 data. 
5.  I&M data includes their 70% take of Rockport 2 based on AEP Generation Co. FERC Form 1 data. 
6. KPCo data includes their 30% take of Rockport 2 based on AEP Generation Co. FERC Form 1 data. 
 
IF-EU-110a.3 
Discussion of long-term and short-term strategy or plan to manage Scope 1 emissions, emissions 
reduction targets, and an analysis of performance against those targets 
 
AEP’s Response:  
AEP’s Climate Impact Analysis pp. 22-34 
Corporate Accountability Report: Carbon and Climate

3 
 
IF-EU-110a.4 
(1) Number of customers served in markets subject to renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and  
(2) percentage fulfillment of RPS target by market 
 
AEP’s Response:  
Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) 
Jurisdiction 
RECS 
Required 
Percentage 
Customers 
Michigan 
342,180 
342,180 
100% 
129,593 
Ohio 
514,906 
514,906 
100% 
1,507,775 
Texas 
396,644 
396,644 
100% 
1,252,033 
Virginia 
1,011,720 
1,011,720 
100% 
537,112 
AEP Total 
2,265,450 
2,265,450 
100% 
3,426,513 
Other Voluntary RPS 
Indiana 
0 
N/A 
N/A 
470,993 
Oklahoma 
0 
N/A 
N/A 
562,618 
Notes:  
1.Total retail customers include residential, commercial industrial, and other customers 
2. Indiana and Michigan did not add RECs in 2020, however they do have programs that support RPS. 
3. RPS = Renewable Portfolio Standard 
4. RECs = Renewable Energy Credits 
 
Air Quality 
 
IF-EU120a.1 
Air emissions of the following pollutants:  
(1) NOx (excluding N2O) 
(2) SOx,  
(3) particulate matter (PM10),  
(4) lead (Pb), and 
(5) mercury (Hg) 
Percentage of each in or near areas of dense population 
 
AEP Response: 
2020 Scope 1 Emissions: 
NOx 
 23,990 MT 
SO2 
 29,720 MT 
Mercury (Hg)  89 kg 
  
ESG Data Center: Emissions Section  
Corporate Accountability Report: Emissions  
2020 TRI Report to come

4 
 
Water Management 
IF-EU140a.1 
(1) Total water withdrawn 
(2) total water consumed, percentage of each in regions with High or Extremely High Baseline 
Water Stress 
 
AEP’s Response:  
 
2020 Water Data 
Total Water Withdrawal 
1,471,202 Million Gallons/year 
Total Water Consumption 
51,405 Million Gallons/year 
ESG Data Center: Water Section  
Corporate Accountability Report: Water 
2020 CDP Water Report pg. 10 and pp. 44-60 (reflects 2019 performance year.  
2020 performance will be published mid-2020) 
IF-EU140a.2 
Number of incidents of non-compliance 
associated with water quantity and/or quality permits, standards, and regulations 
 
2020 CDP Water Report (reflects 2019 performance year. 2020 performance will be published 
mid-2020) 
IF-EU140a.3 
Description of water management risks and discussion of strategies and practices to mitigate 
those risks 
 
AEP’s Response:  
2020 CDP Water Report pg. 14, pp. 23-40 (reflects 2019 performance year. 2020 performance 
will be published mid-2020) 
AEP’s Climate Impact Analysis pg. 57-65 
Corporate Accountability Report: Water  
Coal Ash Management 
IF-EU150a.1 
Amount of coal combustion residuals (CCR) generated, percentage recycled 
 
AEP’s Response: 
2020 CCR Data 
Total CCPs Generated (Tons) 
2,908,761 
Total CCPs Diverted from Landfill (Tons) 
1,019,205 
Percent Total CCPs Diverted from Landfill 
35% 
 
ESG Data Center: Waste Section  
Corporate Accountability Report: Waste

5 
 
IF-EU150a.2 
Total number of coal combustion residual (CCR) impoundments, broken down by hazard 
potential classification and structural integrity assessment 
 
AEP Response:  
CCR Rule Compliance 
 
Energy Affordability 
IF-EU-240a.1 
Average retail electric rate for 
(1) residential 
(2) commercial 
(3) industrial customers 
 
AEP’s Response: 
Retail rates for residential customers can be found on operating company websites. 
AEP Ohio 
AEP Texas 
Appalachian Power 
Indiana Michigan Power 
Kentucky Power 
Public Service Company of Oklahoma 
Southwestern Electric Power Company 
 
IF-EU-240a.2  
Typical monthly electric bill for residential customers for 
(1) 500 kWh and  
(2) 1,000 kWh of electricity delivered per month 
 
AEP’s Response: 
Varies by jurisdiction; see operating company websites listed above. 
IF-EU-240a.3  
Number of residential customer electric 
disconnections for non-payment, percentage reconnected within 30 days 
 
AEP’s Response: 
 
Length of Disconnect 
# of Customers 
Total number of residential customer disconnects 
252,456 
Total residential reconnects within 7 days 
197,963 
Total number of all customer disconnects 
265,204 
Total number of all customer reconnects within 7 days 
206,391 
GRI Report Appendix 26

6 
 
IF-EU-240a.4 
Discussion of impact of external factors on customer affordability of electricity, including the 
economic conditions of the service territory 
 
AEP’s Response: 
Customer Assistance 
AEP’s Climate Impact Analysis pp. 75-78 
AEP’s COVID-19 Response 
Workforce Health and Safety 
IF-EU320a.1 
1) Total recordable incident rate (TRIR) 
(2)fatality rate 
(3) near miss frequency rate (NMFR) 
 
AEP’s Response: 
 
2020 Safety and Health Data 
Employee TRIR 
0.576 
Employee Fatalities 
0 
ESG Data Center: Safety & Health Section (more S&H metrics) 
Corporate Accountability Report: Safety & Health  
End-use Efficiency& Demand 
IF-EU-420a.1 
Percentage of electric utility revenues from rate structures that  
(1) are decoupled  
(2)contain a lost revenue adjustment mechanism (LRAM) 
 
AEP’s Response: 
OpCo / 
Jurisdiction 
Total Sales of 
Electricity ($) 
Decoupled 
Revenue ($) 
Decoupled 
Revenue (%) 
LRAM 
Revenue ($) 
LRAM 
Revenue 
(%) 
Note 
AEP Ohio 
2,501,087,218 
15,913,514 
0.64% 
                  -  
             -  
1 
AEP Texas 
1,055,482,121 
                  -  
                  -  
                  -  
             -  
  
APCo VA 
1,256,306,873 
                  -  
                  -  
                  -  
             -  
  
APCo WV 
1,465,691,334 
                  -  
                  -  
3,898,177 
0.27% 
2 
IM IN 
1,516,860,048 
                  -  
                  -  
12,710,905 
0.84% 
3 
IM MI 
330,488,080 
                  -  
                  -  
                  -  
             -  
4 
KGP TN 
149,876,251 
                  -  
                  -  
                  -  
             -  
  
KPCo KY 
498,933,871 
                  -  
                  -  
299,966 
0.06% 
5 
PSO OK 
1,186,599,150 
                  -  
                  -  
8,027,817 
0.68% 
6 
SWP AR 
294,865,967 
                  -  
                  -  
567,417 
0.19% 
7 
SWP LA 
575,497,663 
                  -  
                  -  
433,488 
0.08% 
8 
SWP TX 
570,692,470 
                  -  
                  -  
                  -  
             -  
  
Total AEP 
11,402,381,046 
15,913,514 
0.14% 
25,937,770 
0.23%

7 
 
Notes: 
1. AEP Ohio recovers decoupled revenues in its Pilot Throughput Balancing Rider (PTBAR) for RS and non-demand-metered GS 
customers 
2. APCo WV recovers lost revenue (LR) through its Energy Efficiency/Demand Response Cost Recovery Rider (EEDR) 
3. I&M recovers Indiana NLR in its Demand Side Management / Energy Efficiency Rider 
4. I&M has a NLR Tracker in Michigan, but collected $0 of lost revenue through the rider in 2020 
5. KPCo recovers LR in its Demand-Side Management Adjustment Clause 
6. PSO recovers LR in its Demand Side Management Cost Recovery Rider; 2020 values are estimates, subject to true-up 
7. SWEPCO recovers AR Lost Contribution to Fixed Costs (LCFC) through its Energy Efficiency Cost Rider (EECR) 
8. SWEPCO recovers LA LCFC through its EECR 
 
IF-EU-420a.2 
Percentage of electric load served by smart grid technology 
 
AEP’s Response: 
 
ESG Data Center: Grid Reliability & Energy Efficiency Section  
Corporate Accountability Report:  
Grid Reliability & Resilience 
Technology and Innovation 
Renewables 
IF-EU-420a.3  
Customer electricity savings from efficiency measures, by market 
 
AEP’s Response: 
ESG Data Center: Grid Reliability & Energy Efficiency Section  
Energy Management 
 
Energy Efficiency information by OpCo: 
AEP Ohio 
AEP Texas 
Appalachian Power  
Indiana Michigan Power 
Kentucky Power 
Public Service Company of Oklahoma 
Southwestern Electric Power Company 
Nuclear Safety& Emergency Management 
IF-EU540a.1  
Total number of nuclear power units, broken down by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) Action Matrix Column 
 
AEP’s Response: 
 
AEP has two nuclear power units operating at the Cook Nuclear Plant in Michigan 
Indiana Michigan Cook Nuclear Plant

8 
 
 
IF-EU540a.2  
Description of efforts to manage nuclear safety and emergency preparedness 
 
AEP’s Response: 
Cook Nuclear Plant Emergency Plan 
2020 Form 10k: Pdf pp. 32-34 and 301-303 
Grid Resiliency 
IF-EU-550a.1 
Number of incidents of non-compliance with physical and/or cybersecurity standards or 
regulations 
 
AEP’s Response: 
GRI Report  Appendix 22 
 
IF-EU-550a.2 
(1) System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) 
(2) System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) 
(3) Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI), inclusive of major event days 
 
AEP’s Response: 
 
2020 Grid Resiliency 
SAIDI 
231.80 
SAIFI 
1.47 
CAIDI 
158.00 
 
ESG Data Center: Grid Reliability & Energy Efficiency Section  
Corporate Accountability Report: Grid Reliability

9 
 
Activity Metrics 
IF-EU-000.A 
Number of:  
(1) residential 
(2) commercial, 
(3) industrial customers served 
 
AEP Response:  
Year End 2020 Customer Counts 
Residential  
4,709,111 
Commercial 
721,900 
Industrial 
46,576 
Other 
30,183 
Total 
5,507,770 
 
ESG Data Center: Customer Section 
IF-EU-000.B 
Total electricity delivered to: 
(1) residential 
(2) commercial 
(3) industrial 
(4) all other retail customers 
(5) wholesale customers 
AEP Response:  
2020 Form 10k: pg. 95, 101 
Customer Type 
Vertically Integrated and Transmission and 
Distribution Utilities Total (Millions of KWhs) 
Residential 
58,044 
Commercial 
46,233 
Industrial 
55,292 
Other 
2,934 
Total Retail 
162,493 
Wholesale 
18,846 
Total KWhs 
181,339 
 
IF-EU-000.C 
Length of transmission and distribution lines 
 
AEP Response:

10 
 
2020 Transmission and Distribution line length 
Transmission 
~ 40,000 
Distribution 
~223,000 
 
ESG Data Center: Grid Reliability Section 
IF-EU-000.D 
Total electricity generated, percentage by major energy source, percentage in regulated markets 
 
AEP Response:  
2020 Total Net Generation for the Data Year 
(Owned and Purchased) 
MWh 
% of  
total 
Coal 38,184,607 
44.5% 
Natural Gas 14,175,228 
16.5% 
Nuclear 18,268,937 
21.3% 
Hydro 
1,356,104 
1.6% 
Solar 
547,025 
.6% 
Wind 13,230,768 
15.4 
Total 85,762,669 
100% 
 
ESG Data Center: Energy Section 
 
IF-EU-000.E 
Total wholesale electricity purchased 
 
AEP Response:  
EEI  ESG/Sustainability Report

AEP’S 2021
GRI STANDARDS 
REPORT

2 
 
2021 GRI Report   
AEP’s 2021 Corporate Accountability Report has been prepared in accordance with the GRI 
Standards Core Option and reflects data for the 2020 performance year. All Standards below 
are based on the most recent set of GRI Standards published. AEP discloses additional 
information through the GRI Electric Utility Sector Supplement, providing industry-specific 
information.  
The GRI Standards are a voluntary reporting framework used by organizations around the world 
as a basis for sustainability reporting. AEP uses the GRI Framework as a supplement to our 
Corporate Accountability Report (CAR), providing additional detail on data and programs that 
are relevant to stakeholders but not necessarily covered in the CAR. For this reason, many of 
the GRI Standard are linked to sections of the CAR as a response along with other annual 
financial company-wide disclosure documents. Links to other AEP websites and company 
documents are also used to support our responses. For those Standards not supported by the 
CAR or other company websites and document, the detail is contained within the appendix 
section of this report. 
 
For more information contact:  
Sandy Nessing  
Managing Director, Corporate Sustainability  
American Electric Power  
smnessing@aep.com  
Melissa Tominack  
Manager, Corporate Sustainability  
American Electric Power  
matominack@aep.com  
 
Madeline Moses 
Corporate Sustainability Coordinator Associate 
American Electric Power 
mjmoses@aep.com

3 
 
GRI Indicator 
GRI Data Requests 
AEP Response 
Organization overview 
GRI 102-1 
Name of the Organization 
American Electric Power Company Inc. 
GRI 102-2 
Activities, Brands, Products, and 
Services 
Electricity Generation, Transmission, 
and Distribution 
 
AEP Businesses  
AEP Facts 
GRI 102-3 
Location of Headquarters 
1 Riverside Plaza 
Columbus, Ohio 43215-2373 
614 716-1000   
 
AEP Facts  
GRI 102-4 
Location of Operations 
Regulated States Served: Arkansas, 
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, 
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West 
Virginia 
 
AEP Facts  
GRI 102-5 
Ownership and Legal Form 
2020 Form 10-K Pdf Pg. 1 and 14-17 
GRI 102-6 
Markets Served 
Regulated Utilities: Arkansas, Indiana, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, 
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, 
Virginia, West Virginia 
AEP Businesses 
GRI 102-7 
Scale of the Organization 
Number of employees: Approx. 16,800 
Net Revenues: $14.9 Billion 
 
AEP Facts 
2020 Form 10-K  
GRI 102-8 
Information on Employees and 
Other Workers 
See appendix 1 
*EEO-1 Report included on page 16 
GRI 102-9 
Supply Chain 
Supply Chain Management 
GRI 102-11 
Precautionary Principle or Approach 
Risk Management  
Carbon & Climate

4 
 
GRI 102-12 
External Initiatives 
Economic Impact 
Community Impact 
Diversity Equity & Inclusion  
Leadership Diversity 
GRI 102-13 
Membership of Associations 
Political Engagement  
Regulatory 
GRI 102-14 
Statement From Senior Decision-
maker 
Message From the Chairman 
GRI 102-15 
Key Impacts, Risks, and 
Opportunities 
2020 Form 10-K pg. 34-52 
Risk Management  
Carbon & Climate 
GRI 102-16 
Values, Principles, Standards, and 
Norms Of Behavior  
AEP’s Principles of Business Conduct 
pg. 4-9 
GRI 102-17 
Mechanism for Advice and 
Concerns about Ethics 
AEP’s Principles of Business Conduct 
pg. 46-47 
Governance 
GRI 102-18 
Governance Structure 
Board Facts & FAQ  
Board Committees 
AEP Leadership 
GRI 102-19 
Delegating Authority 
Strategy 
Board Facts & FAQs 
GRI 102-20 
Executive-Level Responsibility for 
Economic, Environmental, and 
Social Topics 
AEP Leadership 
Board Statement 
GRI 102-21 
Consulting Stakeholders on 
Economic, Environmental, and 
Social Topics 
Stakeholder Engagement 
GRI 102-22 
Composition of the Highest 
Governance Body and its 
Committees 
Board of Directors 
GRI 102-23 
Chair of the Highest Governance 
Body 
Nicholas K. Akins, Chairman, 
President, and CEO 
Board of Directors 
GRI 102-24 
Nominating and Selecting the 
Highest Governance Body 
2021 Proxy Statement 
GRI 102-25 
Conflicts of Interest 
AEP’s Principles of Corporate 
Governance pg. 13-15 
GRI 102-26 
Role of the Highest Governance 
Body in Setting Purpose, Values, 
and Strategy 
Board Statement

5 
 
GRI 102-27 
Collective Knowledge of Highest 
Governance Body 
2021 Proxy Statement pg. 4-11 
GRI 102-28 
Evaluating the Highest Governance 
Body's Performance 
AEP’s Principles of Corporate 
Governance  
GRI 102-29 
Identifying and Managing Economic, 
Environmental and Social Impacts 
AEP’s Climate Impact Analysis  
Risk Management  
2020 Form 10-K   
GRI 102-30 
Effectiveness of Risk Management 
Process 
Risk Management  
GRI 102-31 
Review of Economic, Environmental 
and Social Topics 
Materiality 
GRI 102-32 
Highest Governance Body’s Role in 
Sustainability Reporting 
Sustainability/ESG Governance 
Board Statement 
Message From the Chairman 
GRI 102-33 
Communicating Critical Concerns 
AEP’s Principles of Business Conduct 
pg. 44-47 
GRI 102-34 
Nature and Total Number of Critical 
Concerns 
2021 Proxy Statement 
2020 Form 10-K   
Annual Compensation 
GRI 102-35 
Remuneration Policies 
2021 Proxy Statement pg. 31 
GRI 102-36 
Process for Determining 
Remuneration  
2021 Proxy Statement pg. 31 
GRI 102-37 
Stakeholders Involvement in 
Remuneration  
2021 Proxy Statement pg. 31 
GRI 102-38 
Annual Total Compensation Ratio 
2021 Proxy Statement pg. 68 
GRI 102-39 
Percentage Increase in Annual Total 
Compensation Ratio 
2021 Proxy Statement pg. 68 
Stakeholder Engagement 
GRI 102-40 
List of Stakeholder Groups 
Stakeholder Engagement 
GRI 102-41 
Collective Bargaining Coverage 
Labor Relations 
GRI 102-42 
Identifying and Selecting 
Stakeholders 
Stakeholder Engagement 
GRI 102-43 
Approach to Stakeholder 
Engagement 
Stakeholder Engagement 
GRI 102-44 
Key Topics and Concerns Raised 
Stakeholder Engagement 
Materiality

6 
 
Materiality and Topic Boundaries 
GRI 102-45 
Entities Included in the Consolidated 
Financial Statements 
AEP Businesses  
2020 Form 10-K  Pdf pg. 1 
GRI 102-46 
Defining Report Content and Topic 
Boundaries 
Sustainability/ESG Governance 
Materiality 
Stakeholder Engagement 
GRI 102-47 
List of Material Topics 
Materiality 
GRI 102-48 
Restatements of Information 
No Significant Restatements 
GRI 102-49 
Changes in Reporting 
No Significant Changes 
GRI 102-50 
Reporting Period 
January 1, 2020 – December 31, 2020 
*Unless otherwise stated  
GRI 102-51 
Date of Most Recent Report 
AEP’s 2021 Corporate Accountability 
Report Released May 19, 2021 
GRI 102-52 
Reporting Cycle 
Sustainability/ESG Governance 
GRI 102-53 
Contact Point for Questions 
Regarding the Report 
Sandra Nessing: smnessing@aep.com   
Melissa Tominack: 
matominack@aep.com  
Madeline Miller: mjmiller5@aep.com 
GRI 102-54 
Claims of Reporting in Accordance 
with the GRI Standards 
GRI Core Option 
GRI 102-55 
GRI Content Index 
This table is the GRI Index for AEP 
pg.3-13 
GRI 102-56 
External Assurance 
Audit Statement 
Board Statement 
103-1 
Explanation of the Material Topic 
and its Boundary 
Materiality 
Economic Impact 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Economic Performance 
Message From the Chairman 
2020 Form 10-K  Annual Report pg. 1 
Strategy 
201-1 
Direct Economic Value Generated 
And Distributed 
Economic Impact 
Regulatory 
Appendix 2 
201-2 
Financial Implications And Other 
Risks And Opportunities Due To 
Climate Change 
AEP’s Climate Impact Analysis  
Carbon & Climate

7 
 
201-3 
Defined Benefit Plan Obligations 
and Other Retirement Plans 
Caring for Our Workforce  
Benefits 
COVID-19 Response 
GRI 202-1 
Ratio of Standard Entry Level Wage 
by Gender Compared to Local 
Minimum Wage 
See appendix 3 
GRI 202-2 
Proportion of Senior Management 
Hired From The Local Community 
See appendix 4 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Indirect Economic Impacts 
Economic Impact 
AEP’s Climate Impact Analysis Pg. 78 
GRI 203-1 
Infrastructure Investments and 
Services Supported 
Technology & Innovation 
GRI 203-2 
Significant Indirect Economic 
Impacts 
Economic Impact  
Appendix 2 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Procurement Practices 
See appendix 5 
GRI 204-1 
Proportion Of Spending On Local 
Suppliers  
Supply Chain Management 
Ethics & Compliance 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Anti-corruption 
AEP’s Anti-Corruption Policy 
AEP’s Principles of Business Conduct 
pg.13-24 
GRI 205-1 
Operations Assessed for Risks 
Related to Corruption 
AEP’s Anti-Corruption Policy 
Ethics and Compliance 
AEP’s Principles of Business Conduct 
Pg. 13-20 
GRI 205-2 
Communication and Training about 
Anti-Corruption Policies and 
Procedures 
Ethics and Compliance 
AEP’s Principles of Business Conduct 
pg. 13-24, 46-47 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Anti-competitive Behavior 
AEP’s Anti-Corruption Policy 
AEP’s Principles of Business Conduct 
pg. 17- 26 
GRI 206-1 
Legal Actions for Anti-Competitive 
Behavior, Anti-trust and Monopoly 
Practices 
2020: There were no relevant 
controversies, no legal actions pending 
or completed during this reporting 
period for anti-competitive behavior or 
violations of anti-trust and monopoly 
legislation. 
AEP’s Anti-Corruption Policy 
AEP’s Principles of Business Conduct 
pg. 17-26

8 
 
GRI 207-1 
Approach to tax 
2020 Form 10-K   Pg. 95-100, 116, 125 
Materials 
GRI 301-1 
Materials Used by Weight or 
Volume 
Waste 
GRI 301-2 
Recycled Input Materials Used 
Waste 
Facility Energy Consumption 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Energy Management Approach 
Energy Management 
Renewables 
GRI 302-1 
GRI 302-1 Energy Consumption 
Within the Organization 
See Appendix 6 
Energy Management 
GRI 302-4 
GRI 302-4 Reduction of Energy 
Consumption 
Water 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Water Management Approach 
Water 
2020 CDP Water Report 
GRI 303-1 
Water Withdrawal by Source 
2020 CDP Water Report pg. 11-12 
GRI 303-2 
Water Sources Significantly Affected 
By Withdrawal of Water  
2020 CDP Water Report pg. 10 
GRI 303-3 
Water Recycled and Reused 
ESG Data Center: Environmental 
Performance - Water Section 
Biodiversity 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Biodiversity Management Approach 
See appendix 7 
GRI 304-1 
Operational Sites Owned, Leased, 
Managed In, or Adjacent To, 
Protected Areas and Areas of High 
Biodiversity Value Outside 
Protected Areas 
See appendix 8 
GRI 304-2 
Significant Impacts of Activities, 
Products, and Services on 
Biodiversity  
See appendix 9 
GRI 304-3 
Habitats Protected or Restored  
See appendix 10 
GRI 304-4 
IUCN Red List Species and National 
Conservation List Species with 
Habitats in Areas Affected by 
Operations 
See appendix 11 
Emissions

9 
 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Emissions Management Approach  
Carbon & Climate 
AEP’s Climate Impact Analysis  
GRI 305-1 
Direct (Scope 1) GHG Emissions 
ESG Data Center:  Emissions Section 
GRI 305-2 
Energy Indirect (Scope 2) GHG 
Emissions 
ESG Data Center:  Emissions Section 
GRI 305-3 
Other Indirect (Scope 3) GHG 
Emissions 
ESG Data Center:  Emissions Section 
GRI 305-4 
GHG Emissions Intensity 
ESG Data Center:  Emissions Section 
GRI 305-5 
Reduction of GHG Emissions 
ESG Data Center:  Emissions Section 
GRI 305-7 
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Sulfur 
Oxides (SOx), and Other Significant 
Air Emissions 
ESG Data Center:  Emissions Section 
Waste 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Effluents and Waste Management 
Approach 
Waste 
GRI 306-1 
Water Discharge by Quality and 
Destination 
See appendix 12  
2020 CDP Water Report page 13, 55-
61 
GRI 306-2 
Waste by Type and Disposal 
Method 
AEP’s TRI Reports 
Waste 
ESG Data Center: Waste Section 
GRI 306-3 
Significant Spills 
GRI 306-4 
Transport of Hazardous Waste 
GRI 306-5 
Water Bodies Affected by Water 
Discharges and/or Runoff 
2020 CDP Water Report pg.  page 13, 
55-61 
Environmental Compliance 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Environmental Compliance 
Management Approach 
AEP’s Climate Impact Analysis  
Environmental Regulations & 
Compliance 
EHS Policy & Philosophy 
GRI 307-1 
Non-Compliance with Environmental 
Laws and Regulations 
Environmental Regulations & 
Compliance 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Supplier Environmental Assessment 
Management Approach 
See appendix 13 
Employment: Benefits and Health & Safety

10 
 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Employment Management 
Approach 
Human Capital Management  
Labor Relations 
Workforce Planning & Development 
Caring for our Workforce 
GRI 401-1 
New Employee Hires and Employee 
Turnover 
See appendix 14 
Human Capital Management   
Workforce Planning & Development 
Future Talent Pipeline 
GRI 401-2 
Benefits Provided to Full-Time 
Employees that are Not Provided to 
Temporary or Part-Time Employees 
Caring for our Workforce 
Benefits  
GRI 401-3 
Parental Leave  
See appendix 15 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Management Approach: 
Labor/Management Relations 
Culture 
Human Capital Management 
Labor Relations 
Workforce Planning & Development 
Caring for our Workforce 
GRI 402-1 
Minimum Notice periods regarding 
Operational Changes 
AEP’s Climate Impact Analysis Pg. 74 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Occupational Health and Safety 
Management Approach 
Safety & Health  
Safety & Health Initiatives 
Workforce Safety & Security 
Public Safety 
GRI 403-1 
Workers Representation in Formal 
Joint Management “Worker Health 
and Safety Committees 
Safety & Health Initiatives  
GRI 403-2 
Types of Injury and Rates of Injury, 
Occupational Diseases, Lost Days, 
and Absenteeism, and Number of 
Work-Related Fatalities 
Safety & Health  
ESG Data Center: Safety & Health 
Section 
GRI 403-3 
Workers with High Incidence or High 
Risk of Diseases Related to their 
Occupation 
Safety & Health  
Safety & Health Initiatives 
Workforce Safety & Security 
GRI 403-4 
Health and Safety Topics Covered 
in Formal Agreements with Trade 
Unions 
Safety & Health  
Safety & Health Initiatives 
Workforce Safety & Security 
Workforce Development 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Training and Education 
Management Approach 
Human Capital Management  
Workforce Planning & Development 
Future Talent Pipeline 
GRI 404-1 
Average Hours of Training Per Year 
Per Employee 
See appendix 16 
Future Talent Pipeline 
Workforce Planning & Development

11 
 
GRI 404-2 
Programs for Upgrading Employee 
Skills and Transition Assistance 
Programs 
Human Capital Management  
Workforce Planning & Development 
Future Talent Pipeline 
GRI 404-3 
Percentage of Employees Receiving 
Regular Performance and Career 
Development Reviews 
 See appendix 17 
Diversity & Inclusion 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Diversity and Equal Opportunity 
Management Approach  
Diversity Equity & Inclusion  
Leadership Diversity 
GRI 405-1 
Diversity of Governance Bodies and 
Employees 
AEP Leadership 
Board of Directors 
ESG Data Center: Governance Section 
GRI 405-2 
Ratio of Basic Salary and 
Remuneration of Women to Men 
 See appendix 18 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Non-discrimination Management 
Approach  
AEP’s Principles of Business Conduct 
Pg. 8  
Diversity Equity & Inclusion  
GRI 406-1 
Incidents of Discrimination and 
Corrective Actions Taken 
See appendix 19 
Labor Practices & Decent work 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Freedom of Association and 
Collective Bargaining Management 
Approach 
Labor Relations 
GRI 407-1 
Operations and Suppliers in which 
the Right To Freedom of 
Association and Collective 
Bargaining May Be At Risk 
Labor Relations 
AEP’s Principles of Business Conduct 
pg. 15, 22 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Child Labor Management Approach 
See appendix 20 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Forced or Compulsory Labor 
Management Approach 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Security Practices Management 
Approach 
Enterprise Security 
Workforce Safety & Security 
Human Rights 
GRI 410-1 
Security Personnel Trained in 
Human Rights Policies or 
Procedures 
Ethics & Compliance 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Human Rights Assessment 
Management Approach 
AEP’s Principles of Business Conduct 
pg. 8, 11

12 
 
GRI 412-1 
Operations That Have Been Subject 
to Human Rights Reviews or Impact 
Assessments 
Culture 
AEP’s Principles of Business Conduct 
pg. 8, 11 
GRI 412-2 
Employee Training on Human 
Rights Policies or Procedures 
Ethics & Compliance 
Community Impacts 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Local Communities Management 
Approach 
Community Impact 
Volunteerism 
AEP’s Climate Impact Analysis  Pg. 74 
GRI 413-1 
Operations with Local Community 
Engagement, Impact Assessments, 
and Development Programs 
Community Impact 
Volunteerism 
AEP’s Climate Impact Analysis  Pg. 74 
GRI 413-2 
Operations with Significant Actual 
and Potential Negative Impacts on 
Local Communities 
2020 CDP Water Survey pg. 78 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Supplier Social Assessment 
Management Approach 
See appendix 21 
Business to Business 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Public Policy Management 
Approach 
 Regulatory  
GRI 415-1 
Political Contribution 
 Regulatory  
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Customer Health and Safety 
Management Approach 
 Public Safety 
Product Responsibility 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Marketing and Labeling 
Management Approach  
Customer Engagement 
AEP Businesses 
Customer Privacy 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 103-3 
Management Approach 
See appendix 22 
Security 
GRI 418-1 
Substantiated Complaints 
Concerning Breaches of Customer 
Privacy and Losses of Customer 
Data 
GRI 103-1, 103-2, 
103-3 Management 
Approach 
Socioeconomic Compliance 
Management Approach 
Economic Impact 
Regulatory 
 
 
  
Electric Utility Sector Disclosures 
GRI EU1 
Installed Capacity 
ESG Data Center: Energy Section

13 
 
GRI EU2 
Net Energy Output 
ESG Data Center: Energy Section 
GRI EU3 
Number of Customer Accounts 
ESG Data Center: Customer Section 
GRI EU4 
Length of Electrical Lines  
ESG Data Center: Grid Reliability 
Section 
EU-MA EU-DMA 
Aspect Availability and Reliability 
ESG Data Center: Grid Reliability 
Section 
GRI EU 10 
Planned Capacity  
Strategy 
AEP’s Climate Impact Analysis  
EU-MA EU-DMA 
Aspect: Research and Development 
Technology & Innovation 
EU-MA EU-DMA 
Aspect: Plant Decommissioning 
AEP’s Climate Impact Analysis  Pg. 74 
Cook Nuclear Plant 
GRI EU 11 
Average Generation Efficiency 
See appendix 23 
GRI EU 12 
Total Distribution and Transmission 
Losses 
See Appendix 24 
GRI EU 13 
Biodiversity Offset Habitats 
Wildlife Protection 
See appendix 6 and 9 
GRI EU 15 
Employees Eligible to Retire 
ESG Data Center: Workforce  
GRI EU 18 
Contractor H&S Training 
Safety & Health Initiatives  
GRI EU 22 
Population Displacement and 
Compensation 
See Appendix 25 
GRI EU 25 
Public Injuries and Fatalities 
See appendix 26 
EU-MA EU-DMA 
Aspect: Demand-Side Management 
Customers 
Customer Engagement 
Customer Assistance 
EU-MA EU-DMA 
Aspect: Disaster/Emergency 
Planning and Response 
Risk Management  
Message From the Chairman 
EU-MA EU-DMA 
Aspect: Access 
ESG Data Center: Customer Section 
GRI EU 26 
Unserved Population 
Technology and Innovation 
Economic Impact 
GRI EU 27 
Disconnections for Non-Payment 
 See appendix 27 
GRI EU 28 
Power Outage Frequency 
ESG Data Center: Grid Reliability 
Section 
GRI EU 29 
Average Power Outage Duration 
GRI EU 30 
Average Plant Availability Factor 
EU-MA EU-DMA 
Aspect: Provision of Information 
 See appendix 28

14 
 
2021 GRI Report Appendix 
 
Appendix 1: GRI 102-8 Information on Employees and Other Workers  
Reg/Temp 
Full/Part 
Male 
Female 
Total 
Regular 
Full-time 
13,535 
3,299 
16,834 
Regular 
Part-time* 
1 
22 
23 
Temporary (Not including 
Contractors) 
Full-time 
3 
3 
6 
Temporary (Not including 
Contractors) 
Part-time 
0 
1 
1 
* Note: Because of the types of jobs AEP hires for, we have generally found it to be more effective and 
efficient to fill full-time positions to accomplish the work we are trying to achieve. 
State 
Male 
Female 
AR 
332 
28 
CA 
8 
10 
DC 
2 
5 
HI 
4 
1 
IL 
87 
30 
IN 
864 
184 
KS 
1 
1 
KY 
348 
49 
LA 
505 
225 
MI 
1,016 
185 
MN 
1 
1 
MO 
0 
1 
NE 
2 
1 
OH 
4,335 
1,462 
OK 
1,330 
339 
PA 
13 
2 
TN 
64 
12 
TX 
2,136 
340 
VA 
920 
131 
WV 
1,571 
318

15 
 
2019 EEO-1 Report (summary data):  
 
Notes: 
1. Data as of Nov. 2019 
2. EEO-1 Report will be updated once final data is approved during Q3 2021. Updated report will contain 
2020 data 
 
 
Appendix 2: GRI 201-1 Direct Economic Value Generated and 
Distributed and GRI Significant Indirect Economic Impacts  
Capital Spend: 
The capital spend impacts reflect the impact the capital spending by the operating companies 
and transmission companies in 2020.  The capital spend is depicted in the direct output. The 
direct impacts reflect the spend by the AEP entities in a number of categories.  Direct 
employment is estimated based on the various spends.  Value added can be interpreted as the 
GDP contributions for direct, indirect and induced activities on the table.  Direct value added 
represents the impact the capital spends.  Indirect value added is the impact on the economy of 
purchases by businesses in the direct spend activities.  This can be viewed as the effects on the 
supply chain for the direct purchases.  The induced value added represents the impacts on the 
economy of purchases by workers in direct and indirect categories. 
AEP’s 2020 capital spending created or supported 22,089 direct jobs, 4.678 indirect jobs and 
7,335 induced jobs.  The total job impacts is estimated to 34,102.  These jobs created a total 
compensation of $1,870 million.  The impact to gross regional impact is estimated to be $2,874 
million.

16 
 
AEP Capital Spend Impact 
Impact 
Employment 
Labor Income 
Value Added 
Output 
Direct 
21,975 
$1,272,551,328 
$1,976,449,111 
$3,446,785,209 
Indirect 
5,396 
$288,109,832 
$480,513,292 
$964,248,207 
Induced 
7,508 
$319,356,551 
$582,360,403 
$1,050,679,506 
Total 
34,879 
$1,880,017,713 
$3,039,322,807 
$5,461,712,923 
 
Operations: 
Revenues for the entities within AEP is reflected in the direct output section in the impacts table.  
The employment and labor income are estimated based on activities in the various regions.  
The operations impact reflects the impact AEP has on the economy in the various regions.  The 
operations represents the services provided by AEP entities to a variety of customers, direct 
employment is estimated by the relationship with revenues (output) for the various entities.  
Direct value added for operations is the impact on GDP due to AEP entities normal operations.  
The induced value added reflects the supply chain impacts. 
AEP Capital Spend Impact 
Impact 
Employment 
Labor Income 
Value Added 
Output 
Direct 
12,496 
$1,858,778,609 
$6,727,836,277 
$16,393,987,624 
Indirect 
15,595 
$1,857,441,799 
$4,886,926,051 
$10,903,822,759 
Induced 
17,957 
$822,039,541 
$1,503,206,099 
$2,678,994,314 
Total 
45,887 
4,$538,259,787 
$13,117,968,266 
$29,976,804,536 
 
Appendix 3: GRI 202-1 Ratio of Standard Entry Level Wage by Gender 
Compared to Local Minimum Wage 
  
  
Female 
Male 
State 
Minimum 
Wage- 2020 
Starting Rate 
2020 
Percent 
Starting Rate 
2020 
Percent 
Ohio 
$8.80 
$14.00 
159% 
$13.00 
148% 
Michigan 
$9.65 
$21.63 
224% 
$20.26 
210% 
Indiana 
$7.25 
$17.79 
245% 
$17.79 
245% 
Virginia 
$7.25 
$27.14 
374% 
$20.26 
279% 
West Virginia 
$8.75 
$15.00 
171% 
$16.50 
189% 
Kentucky 
$7.25 
$18.75 
259% 
$17.79 
245% 
Tennessee 
$7.25 
$35.58 
491% 
  
0% 
Texas 
$7.25 
$26.44 
365% 
$17.48 
241% 
Oklahoma 
$7.25 
$15.50 
214% 
$15.50 
214% 
Arkansas 
$11.00 
  
0% 
$19.00 
173% 
Louisiana 
$7.25 
$15.50 
214% 
$16.00 
221% 
*These numbers are based on a range of the ratios of the paid wage to the minimum wage. Range of 
ratios of standard entry level wage by gender compared to local minimum wage at significant locations of 
operation.

17 
 
 
Appendix 4: GRI 202-2 Proportion of Senior Management Hired From 
the Local Community 
While the selection of staff and senior management is based on a range of considerations, it is 
the company’s policy to try to fill vacancies from within the organization. Leadership, knowledge, 
performance and diversity are some of the factors considered in making selection decisions. 
Every effort is made to promote from within the organization; however, there are instances when 
the uniqueness of job requirements or skills necessitate expanding outreach to areas outside of 
the company or our service territory. During 2020, three company executives were selected 
from outside of the organization and service territory:  
- 
Senior Vice President, Chief Information & Technology Officer  
- 
Vice President, Transmission Asset Strategy & Policy 
- 
Vice President, Infrastructure, Operations & Support 
* Local is defined as the AEP service territory, which includes portions of 11 states and senior 
management/executive includes Vice President, Senior Vice President, Executive Vice 
President and Operating Company Presidents. 
 
Appendix 5: GRI 103-1, 103-2, 103-3 Management Approach: 
Procurement Practices 
AEP seeks to maintain relationships with suppliers who are good stewards of the environment, 
ethically and morally responsible, focused on diversity, equity and inclusion, and maintain an 
unwavering focus on safety and health. AEP manages procurement from a category 
management approach with business unit facing support. The Procurement Policy establishes 
governance for competitive bidding and proper oversight controls. The purpose of AEP’s 
management approach is to build fiduciary responsibility into the business processes that 
surround decisions and activities that have an influence on cost, quality, and delivery of goods 
and/or services as well as ensure that AEP’s values are supported and/or furthered during these 
activities. AEP released a new Supplier Code of Conduct in 2020 reflecting expectations for 
suppliers to uphold AEP’s values around safety and health, environmental performance, ethics 
and compliance, anti-bribery, human dignity, diversity and inclusion, and security. Suppliers are 
also accountable and responsible to adhere to all federal, state, and local laws and 
requirements. 
No aspect of AEP operations is more important than the health and safety of people. Zero Harm 
is at the heart of everything we do at AEP. It means we believe all occupational illnesses and 
injuries are preventable because we care that everyone goes home in the same condition than 
when they came to work. The AEP requirements are used in conjunction with the applicable 
AEP General Terms and Conditions for work performed across the AEP System. These 
requirements reflect AEP’s minimum expectations regarding safety, health, and environmental 
practices and may exceed the requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. 
Contractor’s safety performance is monitored and evaluated during the performance of the 
contract by AEP’s representative. If warranted by a contractor’s poor safety performance, AEP 
may require the contractor to develop a safety improvement plan.

18 
 
AEP’s Supplier Diversity program is a proactive business program which encourages the use of 
minority-owned, women-owned, veteran-owned, LGBT-owned, service disabled veteran-owned, 
historically underutilized business, and SBA-defined small business vendors as suppliers. 
By 2023, AEP seeks to generate a pool of diverse strategic suppliers and business partners that 
reflect the customers we serve by reaching a 13% diverse spend. 
Appendix 6: GRI 302-1 Energy Consumption within the Organization, 
GRI 302-4 Reduction of Energy Consumption 
Within our own operations, we take measures to reduce energy consumption. We reduced our 
kilowatt-hour (kWh) usage, normalized for weather, by approximately 35% in 2020, compared 
with the 2007 baseline, in nearly 280 buildings. This resulted in approximately $6.7 million in 
cost savings.  
We achieved these energy consumption reductions mostly through equipment investments, 
such as new lighting, heating and cooling systems, along with employee education. 
ASSIGN TO 
BASELINE 
(2007) 
ACTUAL USAGE 
(2020) 
(DECREASE)/INCREASE 
% kWh 
REDUCTION 
1RP/Arena 
28,647,262 
14,254,200 
(14,393,062) 
-50.24% 
APCO/KPCO 
36,142,370 
21,317,602 
(14,824,768) 
-41.02% 
Corpus 
22,205,387 
14,563,773 
(7,641,614) 
-34.41% 
I&M 
20,960,161 
12,262,112 
(8,698,049) 
-41.50% 
Ohio 
54,934,161 
42,092,208 
(12,841,953) 
-23.38% 
Tulsa 
29,902,938 
20,515,440 
(9,387,498) 
-31.39% 
Grand Total 
192,792,279 
125,005,335 
(67,786,944) 
-35.16% 
 
Appendix 7: GRI 103-1, 103-2, 103-3 Management Approach: 
Biodiversity 
Many of AEP’s business decisions involve finding the right balance between environmental 
protection and economics. Compromises are often necessary, yet it can be difficult to please all 
stakeholders involved. AEP is not immune to these issues and strives to balance the needs of 
our stakeholders with the need to protect the environment.  
AEP investors, business partners, suppliers, capital providers, customers and employees 
increasingly want to know about the direct impacts of AEP’s operations, as well as broader 
environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues and trends. AEP has a robust process for 
determining material sustainability issues and disclosure and defines ESG issues as those that 
reflect our most relevant economic, environmental and social impacts and contributions. They 
are important because they can: 1) have a significant impact on the company’s finances and/or 
operations; 2) have or may have significant impact on the environment or society now or in the 
future; and/or 3) substantially influence the assessments, decisions and actions of our 
stakeholders. Of importance to all AEP stakeholders is our commitment to addressing climate 
change and executing a strategy to transform our business for a clean energy future, which 
includes addressing issues of biodiversity.

19 
 
In 2018, AEP authored a chapter in the book, “Sustainable Electricity II: A Conversation on 
Tradeoffs,” that examines how some of those tradeoffs have played out for AEP over time. The 
book describes the many challenges we have faced with while managing a 60,000-acre tract of 
land in Southeastern Ohio, and how we achieved a balance between the needs of the local 
community with other stakeholders. The book also includes case studies of how AEP resolves 
some of the toughest choices facing electric power companies today (see link to book). 
As we build and maintain new and existing infrastructure across our service territory, such as 
transmission or renewable generation facilities, we are mindful of the potential impacts we may 
have on wildlife. This includes species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. As careful stewards of 
the ecological richness of our geographies, we take the necessary steps to ensure wildlife 
protection. We remain committed to protecting the habitats in which we live and operate.  
 
AEP owns or manages the land around its power generating and transmission facilities. 
System-wide, AEP owns in fee, around 232,747 acres. This includes power plant sites, office 
buildings, substations, transmission and distribution lines, as well as coal fields yet to be mined, 
lands that have been mined, residential structures, river access and various other sites. AEP 
also operates electric transmission and distribution lines throughout its service territories in 
Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, West 
Virginia, and Virginia. Renewable wind and solar facilities are also owned and operated in 
California, Florida, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Colorado, Vermont, New 
Mexico, Iowa, Rhode Island, Illinois, Nebraska, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, 
Oklahoma and Texas.   
Avoiding protected lands and areas of biodiversity, while also avoiding visual and cultural 
resources, is of great importance during new generation or transmission line siting. Some 
company properties are located adjacent to protected areas or areas of high biodiversity. These 
areas are designed, regulated or managed to achieve specific conservation objectives, are 
recognized for important biodiversity features, are a priority for conservation, or have been 
identified as areas of high biodiversity value. High biodiversity areas include national parks and 
forests and habitat for federal and state endangered species. If forested, freshwater or wetland 
ecosystem areas must be disturbed during the construction of new facilities, efforts are made to 
minimize the amount of habitat that is impacted. Once construction starts, areas of high 
ecological value that are disturbed are replaced or restored through compensatory mitigation. 
 
AEP is committed to operational excellence and complying with all applicable environmental 
regulations, while being good stewards of natural resources. One way we check on our 
compliance is through internal audits. Audits provide additional focus on controlling risks and 
providing assurance that robust compliance processes are developed and implemented 
systemwide. In 2020, we conducted 20 audits of environmental compliance, which included 
inspections at 31 locations. 
Environmental audits may reveal potential gaps in performance that are related to regulatory 
requirements and company procedures or policies. These could include areas such as 
recordkeeping, inspection criteria, training topics and equipment configuration. Auditors also 
recognize practices that go beyond regulatory requirements to bring about robust and sustained 
compliance. Although reports are site-specific, we aggregate and share results and best 
practices across our entire system to improve performance across AEP.

20 
 
Appendix 8: GRI 304-1 Operational Sites Owned, Leased, Managed In, 
or Adjacent to, Protected Areas and Areas of High Biodiversity Value 
Outside Protected Areas 
AEP owns or manages the land around its power generating and transmission facilities. 
Systemwide, AEP owns in fee, around 262,200 acres. This includes power plant sites, office 
buildings, substations, transmission and distribution lines, as well as coal fields yet to be mined, 
lands that have been mined, residential structures, river access and various other sites.  
 
Land owned near the power plants directly supports the generation of electricity, serves as a 
buffer to these operations, and is often leased for agriculture. AEP also operates electric 
transmission and distribution lines throughout its service territories in Arkansas, Indiana, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and 
Virginia. Of AEP's nearly 40,000-mile transmission network, approximately 917 miles, or less 
than 3 percent, traverse federal or state lands. While many of the properties through which 
these lines cross have no special designation, some of them are protected for their ecological 
value. 
To help determine which AEP steam electric facilities are located near areas of high 
biodiversity, we used the Nature Serve Map of Biodiversity Importance (MoBI), which uses 
outputs from habitat suitability models for 2,216 of the most imperiled species in the lower 48 
United States.  The inputs include habitat models for species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Endangered Species Act or those that have been identified by 
NatureServe as critically imperiled (Global Conservation Status of “G1”) or imperiled (“G2”). 
These maps cover the contiguous 48 states.  A major advantage of the MoBI maps is that the 
diversity of animals and plants is analyzed. An example map is provided below.  Areas of high 
biodiversity are indicated by yellow and orange, while lower biodiversity is indicated by dark 
purple and blue.

21 
 
AEP generation facilities were “mapped” onto the following three maps, which highlight areas 
with concentrations of imperiled species within the lower 48 states: 
 
Summed range-size rarity of imperiled species in the United States 
 
Richness of Imperiled Species in the United States 
 
Protection-weighted Range-size Rarity of Imperiled Species in the United States 
Diversity ranges of low, medium and high were determined and those facilities near areas of 
“high” diversity, as well as those located near existing protected areas (Gap Status of 1 or 2 - 
managed for biodiversity) from the U.S. Protected Areas database, were identified.  An example 
of this mapping exercise for the Conesville and Dresden Plants is provided below. Note that 
facilities are in areas of high biodiversity as well as located near protected areas of high 
biodiversity. 
 
 
 
Some company properties are located adjacent to protected areas or areas of high biodiversity 
value. These areas are designed, regulated or managed to achieve specific conservation 
objectives, are recognized for important biodiversity features, are a priority for conservation, or 
have been identified as areas of high biodiversity value. High biodiversity areas include national 
parks and forests and habitat for federal and state endangered species.

22 
 
Land owned, leased, managed in, adjacent to, or containing, protected areas and areas of high  
Biodiversity as of December 31, 2020  
Type of facility 
owned, leased or 
managed 
Number of 
Sites 
Adjacent Property Biodiversity 
Descriptions 
Potential Impacts 
Steam Electric  
10 
Unique forest, prairie and avian habitats; 
rare plants, fish and freshwater mussels; 
federally designated critical habitats 
Entrainment, impingement, 
thermal discharges; avian 
impacts; habitat alteration 
Retired Steam 
Electric  
2 
River refuge and National wildlife refuge 
No impacts 
Hydroelectric 
Projects  
6 
Unique wetland and avian habitats; rare 
fish, freshwater mussels, invertebrates and  
unique plant species 
Flow alteration, land 
inundation, disruption of fish 
passage, turbine mortality 
Transmission 
lines 
917 miles 
Federally designated critical habitat and 
National wildlife refuges; other federal or 
state lands 
Avian impacts 
Wind Farms 
2 
Fed designated critical habitat 
Avian and bat impacts 
Forests/Tree 
Plantations 
1 
Preserve for exotic rare and endangered 
species 
No impacts 
Other 
1 
State Wildlife Area; mixed forest, 
bushlands, and wetlands 
No impacts 
Source Information - AEP Hydro Operations data; AEP Real Estate Asset Management data; ArcGIS and 
ESRI mapping tools; NatureServe and state Natural Heritage Programs (The Map of Biodiversity 
Importance [esri.com]); USGS PAD-US maps (https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-
analytics-and-synthesis/gap/data-tools);  IUCN-USGS “protected areas” definitions; WERS staff records 
(power plant sites, T&D line routes); National Forest maps; federal threatened and endangered species 
lists and habitat listings. 
 
Appendix 9: GRI 304-2 Significant Impacts of Activities, Products, and Services 
on Biodiversity 
Impacts of Power Plant and Transmission Line Construction  
Construction of pollution control equipment and associated landfills at power plant sites can 
result in the loss of wetland and riparian areas near several power plant sites. The construction 
of new transmission lines can have similar impacts.  However, these losses are permitted under 
the Corps of Engineers’ 404 program and mitigated by the company, often on a two to one, 
three to one, or higher basis.  Impacts to endangered species habitat are avoided, but if they 
must occur, they are similarly mitigated through in lieu fees to regulatory agencies, the 
conservation of mitigation habitat, or habitat conservation through Habitat Conservation Plans, 
as administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
 
Hydroelectric Generation  
AEP operates several hydroelectric projects that are adjacent to or contain areas of high 
biodiversity. The potential impacts of these facilities includes alteration of stream and wetland 
areas by inundation, fluctuation of river flows and reservoir levels, blockage of upstream and 
downstream fish movement, and turbine-induced mortality. The alteration of river and stream 
flow regimes as a result of dam operation can make otherwise suitable riverine habitat unfit for 
aquatic invertebrates, fish, amphibians, and other riparian-dependent species. Fluctuating

23 
 
stream flows and water levels can also reduce the area suitable for fish spawning and can 
subject fish eggs to dehydration.  
  
The blockage of both upstream and downstream fish movement by dams, diversion structures, 
turbines, spillways, and waterways can affect fish populations. Organisms passing over dam 
spillways or through hydroelectric turbines can be injured by strikes or impacts with solid 
objects, rapid pressure changes, abrasion with rough structures and the shearing effects of 
turbulent water. In addition, fish that pass through trash racks and into turbines become 
susceptible to turbine-induced mortality.  
  
Migrating fish may be prevented from moving upstream if their passage is blocked by the dams. 
AEP operates the Niagara and Smith Mountain hydroelectric projects on the Roanoke River, 
which contains the Roanoke Log perch, a federally endangered fish species. The dams restrict 
the movements of these fish, potentially isolating the populations and preventing genetic mixing.  
  
While there are many potential hydroelectric environmental impacts, all of these are assessed 
and if necessary, mitigated, during the FERC Licensing process. Every AEP hydroelectric 
project has successfully completed this process. 
 
Impacts of Wind Generation  
During 2019, AEP owned and operated two wind facilities, Trent Mesa near Sweetwater, Texas, 
and Desert Sky near Iraan, Texas, that are near federally designated critical habitat for certain 
bird species. These facilities have the potential to impact large raptors, such as golden eagles, 
and smaller birds, while migrating in large flocks. To avoid avian-bird interactions, turbine design 
and wind farm siting have taken avian issues into consideration very early in the process. In 
recent years, bats have come to the wind industry’s attention and studies to grasp the 
dimension of this issue continue. Because of deaths of endangered bats, some wind farms must 
curtail operations when bats are active.  
  
Cooling Water Intake (Impingement and Entrainment) Impacts on Biodiversity  
At AEP’s generating facilities that utilize a once-through cooling water heat transfer system, 
large quantities of water are withdrawn from large rivers, man-made impoundments, or (in the 
case of D.C. Cook Plant), from adjacent Lake Michigan. The potential impacts on local 
biodiversity are impingement (fish irreversibly contacted upon intake screens) and entrainment 
(the passage of small fish and fish eggs through the condenser cooling system. Section 316(b) 
of the Clean Water Act requires that the placement and operation of cooling water intake 
systems meet Best Technology Available for minimizing adverse environmental impact (often 
interpreted to be synonymous with the most cost-effective means of minimizing fish entrainment 
and impingement).  
  
AEP has monitored the fish populations near several facilities utilizing once-through cooling for 
many decades. These studies indicate that the year-to-year fluctuation in population size for key 
species has no correlation to the rates of impingement and/or entrainment.  
  
As an outcome of the final 316(b) and other rulemakings, AEP has closed several once-through 
cooled facilities and may be required to retrofit improved fish protection equipment at the 
remaining once-through cooled facilities. Such changes will lower the rates of impingement

24 
 
and/or entrainment of vulnerable fish species.  
  
Climate Change  
AEP minimizes the impacts of its operations on the environment, however, the company also 
recognizes that some impacts may arise that do not have a direct remedy. Of particular note, 
and in a much larger and more general sense, the company recognizes its possible contribution 
to global climate change and its potential impacts. For more than a decade, AEP has engaged 
various stakeholders on the impacts, risks and opportunities associated with climate change. 
Today, AEP’s transition to a clean energy economy is making good progress as the path 
forward begins to come into sharper focus. In 2021, AEP announced revised intermediate and 
long-term CO2 emission reduction goals, based on the output of the company’s integrated 
resource plans, which take into account economics, customer demand, regulations, grid 
reliability and resiliency, and reflect the company’s current business strategy. The intermediate 
goal is an 80% reduction from 2000 CO2 emission levels from AEP generating facilities by 2030; 
the long-term goal is net-zero CO2 emissions from AEP generating facilities by 2050. AEP’s total 
estimated CO2 emissions in 2020 were approximately 44 million metric tons, a nearly 74% 
reduction from AEP’s 2000 CO2 emissions baseline. AEP published a new report in 2021 on the 
results of a Climate Change Scenario Analysis. 
 
Appendix 10: GRI 304-3 Habitats Protected or Restored 
AEP works in partnership with various community groups, conservation organizations, and 
environmental agencies to preserve, restore, and enhance existing habitats. This work 
encompasses many activities, including the reforestation and reclamation of former mine sites, 
the restoration of impacted wetlands and river corridors, the protection of unique habitats, the 
enhancement of wildlife areas and reservoirs, and the management of tree plantations to 
encourage wildlife. The following habitat protection and restoration examples are split between 
those required by law and those that were done on a voluntary basis.  The acreage values are 
current as of the end of 2019. 
 
Required by Regulation 
Wetland and Habitat Mitigations 
Wetland and habitat mitigations involve setting aside habitats to replace those that were 
unavoidably lost due to the construction of AEP facilities. These mitigation projects have been 
approved by the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and/or state 
environmental agencies. Over the past several years, AEP has established over 1,600 acres for 
mitigation purposes, mostly at steam electric, transmission, and hydroelectric projects (see 
Table below). 
 
In 2019, we began implementing the approved HCP across portions of three states for the 
American burying beetle (ABB). In 2019, the ABB was listed as endangered; however, in 2020 
the listing was downgraded to threatened. The 30-year ITP/HCP allows us to use pre-approved 
practices through a regional, programmatic approach to minimize impacts to the beetle and its 
habitat and to encourage its recovery. The HCP covers portions of Arkansas, Oklahoma and 
northern Texas where we currently have operations or the potential for future development.

25 
 
 
New Source Review Consent Decree Projects  
On December 10, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio entered a 
Consent Decree between AEP, the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, eight states and 13 environmental organizations, regarding 
alleged violations of the New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act. Pursuant to the 
Consent Decree, AEP provided $10 million for the acquisition and/or restoration of ecologically 
significant areas in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West 
Virginia. In addition, AEP provided $3 million in Project Dollars to fund nitrogen impact mitigation 
projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. AEP has made biodiversity protection and 
enhancement key factors in the selection of projects to meet this obligation. As of December 31, 
2017, nearly 20,900 acres have been purchased or protected as part of this program. 
 
Protected Shorelines  
Hydroelectric project reservoirs in western Virginia often include important resources that are of 
value to the local communities and need to be protected. These resources include recreational 
opportunities, scenic beauty, outstanding water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and wetlands. 
As part of the FERC requirements for three hydroelectric projects, AEP has agreed to protect 
118 miles of shoreline habitat to provide these resources. 
 
Enhanced Reservoirs 
AEP has enhanced nearly 6,300 acres of company-managed reservoirs (see Table below). In 
compliance with the requirements of FERC license renewals, wildlife management plans have 
been negotiated at many hydroelectric projects, which require the installation and monitoring of 
duck boxes and nesting structures within the pools above each dam. These activities support 
ducks, bluebirds, purple martins, kestrels, owls, ospreys and bald eagles. Work is also done to 
improve the sport fishing opportunities in the reservoirs upstream of the projects. Efforts include 
the construction of bush pile fish attractors in the river pools and fish stocking. 
 
Voluntary Protections and Donations  
 
Conservation Areas:  
Over 84,450 acres have been set aside as part of AEP’s corporate stewardship program to 
protect unique habitats (see Table below). These include areas such as the Nipissing Dune Trail 
at the Cook Energy Information Center, a prairie at the Darby Plant, a 24 acre nature preserve 
to protect the Kentucky silver bell, a rare tree species near the AEP Cook Coal Terminal in 
southern Illinois, and the eagle watch pavilion at the Flint Creek Plant. 
  
The Flint Creek Power Plant in northwest Arkansas has been home to the Eagle Watch Nature 
Trail for 20 years. SWEPCO Lake, the coal-fueled power plant’s reservoir, attracts wintering 
American bald eagles, making it a perfect place for bird watching. The 65-acre area opened to 
the public in 1999, and includes a trail and pavilions to provide a safe place from which to view 
visiting American Bald eagles and other species. 
 
In 2018, Plant staff and volunteers built a new walkway to a viewing pavilion that extends out 
over a marshy section of the lake frequented by eagles and many other birds and wildlife. 
Groups, such as the Northwest Arkansas Audubon Society, visit the site to view birds and other

26 
 
wildlife along the quarter-mile walking trail. Current and retired plant employees lead field trips 
and coordinate many other activities at the site. 
 
Flint Creek was awarded Conservation Certification by the Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC) in 
2018, in recognition of the plant’s commitment to environmental stewardship. We received the 
certification for habitat enhancement programs, including tall grass prairie restoration, nesting 
boxes, pollinator garden landscapes and other bird habitat improvements. Flint Creek has held 
certification under the WHC’s Corporate Lands for Learning and Wildlife at Work programs 
since 2004 and 2005, respectively, and since 2016 when the two programs were combined into 
the Conservation Certification. 
 
Other examples include work with The Nature Conservancy in the 1990’s to help develop a 
37,000 acre Tall Grass Prairie in Oklahoma and work with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to 
acquire the Bahia Grande property in Texas to re-flood and restore an 11,000-acre wetland. 
 
Wildlife Management Areas  
Up to 23,967 acres, including properties that have been set aside as wildlife management areas 
at the retired Conesville, Breed, and Poston Plants, are currently managed for the support of 
hunting, fishing and wildlife. Donations have also been made to state wildlife management 
areas in Ohio to allow for the expansion of land holdings (see Table below). 
 
Enhanced Reservoirs  
The Southwestern Electric Power Company, a subsidiary of AEP, has been involved in the 
creation of fish habitat in two SWEPCO power plant reservoirs (Welsh and Pirkey), resulting in 
nearly 2,400 acres of enhanced fish habitat. This work included the installation of wood duck 
nesting boxes and other habitat enhancements. 
 
Reforestation/Mine Reclamation and Forest Management  
AEP’s commitment to trees and forest preservation is strong. Since the 1940s, AEP has planted 
tens of million trees in the United States on land owned by the company or under agreement 
with other owners. This total includes 15 million trees planted on 20,000 acres of company land 
between 1996 and 2000 as part of the Department of Energy’s Climate Challenge program. 
These trees will create a new "carbon sink," which is intended to capture or "sequester" carbon 
dioxide, a greenhouse gas, thereby reducing the potential for global climate change. 
 
Through AEP’s ReCreation Land program, Ohio land that was once surface mined for coal has 
been ecologically reclaimed as outdoor recreation area for the public to enjoy. Throughout the 
history of this program, AEP has planted over 63 million trees, created 380 campsites, and 
established 350 lakes and ponds stocked for fishing for an estimated 100,000 visitors each 
year.   
For many decades AEP has had a cooperative agreement with the Ohio Department of Natural 
Resources, allowing citizens to use the ReCreation land for public use. With the electric market 
deregulation in Ohio and the reduction of coal mining in this area, AEP no longer has a future 
business need for this land. On July 17, 2018, AEP completed the sale of a portion of the land 
to create a new state park named in honor of Jesse Owens, turning it over to the State of Ohio. 
At more than 13,000 acres, the Jesse Owens State Park and Wildlife Area is poised to become

27 
 
one of the State’s largest parks once future sales are complete, attracting hundreds of 
thousands of visitors each year for fishing, canoeing, hiking, camping and other outdoor 
activities. 
 
The transfer of land to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) was part of our 
ReCreation Land program, which seeks to ecologically reclaim Ohio land that was once surface-
mined for coal.  
 
In 2018, we received an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Energy and Environment 
Sector Technology Transfer Award for our work in assessing the ecological value of the 
remaining property acreage set aside for the Jesse Owens State Park and Wildlife Area. Moving 
forward, we will apply the results of this work to estimate the potential eco-value of remaining 
ReCreation Land property and to make decisions regarding the divestment of the property for 
future environmental mitigations and eco-asset transactions.  
 
AEP also supports the establishment of tree plantations by providing and planting trees on 
company, government-owned, not-for-profit, and private properties. The government-owned and 
not-for-profit properties are "protected, restored and managed," while the private properties are 
considered to be “restored.” 
 
AEP domestically has thousands of acres of forestland under forest management. The primary 
focus of this program is to maintain the long-term productivity of existing forest assets by 
following a management philosophy of sustainable forestry on property that will remain in forest 
cover for the foreseeable future. This will be accomplished by providing guidance, direction, 
coordination and oversight of all company forest management activities. The forest resource is 
maintained in a steady state by balancing forest growth with timber harvests. Following this 
philosophy is necessary for the credible reporting of active forest management activities. The 
AEP Forest Management Program emphasizes sound contributions to ecological and wildlife 
habitat, and its commitment to enhanced recreational use. 
 
In addition to managing all of AEP’s forest ownerships under the long-term sustained yield 
guidelines, AEP is an active participant in the American Forest Foundation’s American Tree 
Farm Program. This program is a national effort to encourage and recognize excellent forestry 
on private lands that are committed to sustained production of renewable forest products under 
a multiple use management approach. Sustainable forestry means managing forests to meet 
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their 
own needs by practicing a land stewardship ethic which integrates the reforestation, managing, 
growing, nurturing and harvesting of trees for useful products with the conservation of soil, air 
and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat and aesthetics.

28 
 
 
Habitat Protected or Restored 
Habitat Restored, 
Protected or 
Enhanced 
Reason for 
Protection/Restoration 
Habitat 
Acreage 
Habitat Designation/Use 
Habitat 
characteristics 
Required by 
Regulation 
 
 
 
 
Habitat Mitigations 
Corp. permits, USFWS 
HCP requirements  
955 
Stream watersheds, 
American burying beetle 
habitat 
Grasslands, upland 
forests  
Wetland Mitigations 
Corp. permits, FERC 
requirements 
708 
wetland/stream mitigation 
wetlands, shorelines, 
streams  
NSR Conservation 
Areas 
Consent Decree  
20,888 
conservation and 
recreation areas 
forests, prairies, 
grass lands, marine 
wetlands and forests, 
lake dunes, stream 
and river corridors, 
bird habitat 
Protected Streams 
Consent Decree 
21 miles 
conservation area 
warm-water fishery 
Protected Shorelines 
FERC requirement 
118 miles 
resource protection area 
Wetlands, streams, 
fish and wildlife 
habitat 
Enhanced Reservoirs 
FERC requirement 
6,294 
enhanced reservoir, 
recreation 
duck boxes, nesting 
structures, salmon 
fishery, vegetation 
control, fish habitat 
Voluntary Protections and Donations 
 
 
 
Conservation Areas 
Corporate stewardship 
84,455 
enhanced habitats, wildlife 
refuge 
bird, forest and 
prairie habitat, 
wetlands, dunes 
Conservation Stream 
Corporate stewardship 
4 miles 
conservation area 
stream headwaters 
Wildlife Management 
Areas 
Corporate stewardship 
23,967 
hunting/fishing 
wildlife/forest habitat 
Enhanced Reservoirs 
Corporate stewardship 
2,398 
enhanced reservoir, 
recreation 
fish habitat 
Reclaimed Forests 
Reforestation/mine 
reclamation 
88,320 
tree plantation, recreation 
wildlife/forest habitat 
 
Source Information - AEP ReCreation Land records; AEP report, “Beyond Environmental Compliance,” AEP System 
Environmental Performance reports; WERS staff records; AEP Wildlife Habitat Council 
 
Appendix 11: GRI 304-4 IUCN Red List Species and National 
Conservation List Species with Habitats in Areas Affected by 
Operations 
In lieu of the IUCN Red List, AEP has created a list of federally threatened and endangered 
species that may be present near company facilities. A report provided by NatureServe (2015) 
was used as the initial basis for this response. This report provides a summary of priority, at-
risk, species in proximity to power plants and transmission lines managed by AEP.

29 
 
 
The data used to generate this report were current as of December, 2014 and “at-risk” species 
are defined as those that are either federally-listed, are candidate, proposed or petitioned for 
listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), and/or are globally ranked by 
NatureServe as Critically Imperiled (G1/T1) or Imperiled (G2/T2). The analysis used Platt’s 
spatial data of power plants and transmission lines (>69kV) and identified species within three 
miles of the company’s electric power infrastructure. 
 
AEP also conducts its own analyses on the occurrence of protected species on a project-
specific and company-wide basis. For example, AEP now notes the occurrence of two additional 
species within its service territory that have been both been recently been listed as threatened 
(Candy darter) or endangered (Rusty-patched bumble bee). Due to the acquisition of a wind 
farm in Hawaii, four more species (Blackburn’s sphinx moth, Hawaiian petrel, Hawaiian goose, 
and the Hawaiian hoary bat), which are all endangered and the subject of an HCP, are noted by 
AEP. Excluding state-listed species, a total of 96 endangered or threatened species are likely to 
be present within a 3-mile buffer of an AEP power plant or transmission line (see Table below).   
 
Taxonomic Group 
Number of 
Species 
Freshwater mussels 
27 
Fish 
13 
Bats 
6 
Birds 
11 
Mammals (excluding bats) 
4 
Flowering plants 
23 
Insects  
4 
Reptiles 
6 
Snails 
1 
Crustacea 
1 
 
The top species, based on their distribution with AEP’s service territory, include the plants 
Peters Mountain Mallow, South Texas Ragweed, Black Lace Cactus and Slender Rushpea, the 
invertebrate Virginia Fringed Mountain Snail, and three species of fish (Table 5).  The next 
group of species includes freshwater mussels, plants and fish, as well as the Mitchell’s Satyr 
butterfly (Table 5).   
 
Table 5.  Priority Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 
Between 50-100% of their Global Distribution within the Area of Analysis 
Common Name 
Scientific Name 
Taxonomic Group 
Peters Mountain Mallow 
Iliamna corei 
Flowering plant 
Virginia Fringed Mountain 
Snail  
Polygyriscus virginianus 
Snail 
South Texas Ragweed 
Ambrosia cheiranthifolia 
Flowering plant 
Black Lace Cactus 
Echinocereus reichenbachii var. 
albertii 
Flowering plant 
Slender Rushpea 
Hoffmannseggia tenella 
Flowering plant 
Devils River Minnow  
Dionda diabolic 
Fish  
Benton County Cave 
Crayfish  
Cambarus aculabrum 
Crustacean 
Diamond Darter 
Crystallaria cincotta 
Fish

30 
 
Virginia Fringed Mountain 
Snail  
Polygyriscus virginianus 
Crustacean  
Species with 15-35% of their Distribution within the Area of Analysis 
Ouachita Rock Pocketbook  
Arkansia wheeleri) 
Freshwater mussel 
Texas Ayenia  
Ayenia limitaris 
Flowering plant 
Zapata Bladderpod  
Lesquerella thamnophila 
Flowering plant 
Duskytail Darter 
Etheostoma percnurum 
Fish  
Leon Springs Pupfish 
Cyprinodon bovinus 
Fish  
Texas Poppy-mallow 
Callirhoe scabriuscula 
Flowering plant 
Candy Darter 
Etheostoma osburni 
Fish 
Leopard Darter  
Percina pantherina 
Fish  
Mitchell's Satyr butterfly 
Neonympha mitchellii 
Insect 
Rusty-patched Bumble bee 
Bombus affinis 
Insect 
Ashy Dogweed  
Thymophylla tephroleuca 
Flowering plant 
Star Cactus  
Astrophytum asterias 
Flowering plant 
Neosho Mucket  
Lampsilis rafinesqueana 
Freshwater mussel 
Roanoke Logperch  
Percina rex 
Fish  
Walker's Manihot  
Manihot walkerae 
Flowering plant 
Clubshell  
Pleurobema clava 
Freshwater mussel 
Rayed Bean 
Villosa fabalis 
Freshwater mussel 
Catspaw  
Epioblasma obliquata 
Freshwater mussel 
Purple Bean 
Villosa perpurpurea 
Freshwater mussel 
 
Maps were created to illustrate the distribution of the at-risk species and help identify “hot spots” 
or areas where there the species are located (Figures 5 and 6). These hot spots are 
opportunities for targeting more effective mitigation or recovery efforts. For example, including 
“imperiled” species in recovery and management plans can help AEP avoid actions that could 
inadvertently have a negative impact on the species, thereby avoiding further declines and 
possible future listings. In addition, many studies have shown that developing a recovery or 
management plan using a regional multi-species approach is much more likely to have long-
term success in achieving conservation goals (Environmental Law Institute et al. 2011). This 
ecosystem approach has also been promoted by U.S. regulatory and land management 
agencies (Brown 2006).

31 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5: Species by 250 square mile hexagon with ESA status or globally ranked G1/T1-G2/T2 and occur 
within the Midwestern states of the area of analysis. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6: Species by 
250 square mile hexagon with ESA status or globally ranked G1/T1-G2/T2 and occur within the southeastern 
states of the area of analyses.

32 
 
AEP is also working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on a Habitat Conservation 
Plan (HCP) for the American burying bbeetle.  This beetle is listed as endangered and the HCP 
is a mechanism by which  AEP can comply with the ESA. The HCP deals with potential impacts 
from our transmission and distribution operations, maintenance, and construction activities over 
the next 30 years. The federal permit associated with the HCP will help AEP continue to operate 
efficiently to provide safe and reliable electricity to meet the energy needs of our customers, 
while assisting in the conservation of the ABB and its habitat.  
 
Simultaneously, AEP is working with USFWS on a 30-year system-wide, programmatic HCP 
dealing with about 15 other species potentially affected by the Company’s transmission 
construction activities, including the federally endangered Indiana bat, whooping crane, red-
cockaded woodpecker, eastern Mississauga rattlesnake, and rusty patched bumble bee. This 
HCP is currently in the drafting stage, and is anticipated to bring predictability and efficiency to 
the consultation and mitigation process with USFWS while providing tangible benefits to the 
covered bat, bird, plant and other terrestrial species in all eleven states in which AEP 
traditionally operates. 
  
In August 2014, the USFWS received a petition to list the monarch butterfly under the ESA due 
to its notable decline in recent years. After finding it appropriate to review whether the monarch 
butterfly needs protection, a decision is due by the end of 2020 on listing it as threatened or 
endangered.  During the summer, monarchs are found throughout the United States, particularly 
in areas where milkweed, their host plant, is available. Each year, monarchs undertake a multi-
generational migration of thousands of miles to and from overwintering and breeding areas. 
These areas significantly overlap AEP’s generation and transmission network. 
 
An ESA listing for the butterfly could affect our ability to build new or replace old infrastructure, 
and affect our vegetation maintenance activities. As a result, we joined a conservation initiative 
with the USFWS to develop a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA). A 
CCAA is a formal agreement between the USFWS and one or more parties to address the 
conservation needs of a candidate species, before the species becomes listed as endangered 
or threatened. Property managers voluntarily commit to conservation actions that will help 
stabilize or restore the species and possibly avoid a listing. AEP continues to coordinate with 
the University of Illinois-Chicago, as well as other power companies, oil and gas companies and 
state departments of transportation on the development of the collaborative monarch CCAA, 
which was finalized in April 2020.  
 
AEP has also joined the EPRI Power in Pollinators Initiative, which seeks to address issues of 
concern regarding important pollinator species, such as bees, beetles, butterflies and other 
insects. Pollinating insects are necessary to support production of many of our food crops, such 
as apples, tomatoes and watermelon.  Many of these insects are under stress and AEP is 
working with EPRI and other electric utilities to find ways to support and protect pollinating 
insects, birds, and other associated wildlife.  
 
Source Information – Nature Serve. 2015. American Electric Power: Species Prioritization 
Brief. Prepared by NatureServe for the Electric Power Research Institute, April 14, 2015; 
Environmental Law Institute, et al. 2011. A practitioner’s handbook: Optimizing conservation and 
improving mitigation through the use of progressive approaches. Presented by Cambridge 
Systematics to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 25-25, Task 67; 
Brown, J.W. 2006. “Eco-Logical: An ecosystem approach to developing infrastructure projects.” 
Cambridge, Massachusetts: U.S. Department of Transportation; AEP 2020 Corporate 
Accountability Report.

33 
 
Appendix 12: GRI 306-1 Water Discharge by Quality and Destination 
AEP engages with the City of Lawton in Oklahoma, which supplies water to the AEP Comanche 
Plant through its municipal POTW. In the past, AEP has had water quality issues that impacted 
its use in a power plant. We also engage with the City of Gentry, which discharges its treated 
wastewater into Flint Creek’s primary ash pond. This is done in lieu of directly discharging to 
Little Flint Creek, however, this wastewater can cause problems due to nutrients that can 
produce algae blooms, creating compliance problems for AEP. The discharge of the ash pond is 
directed to SWEPCO Lake, which is the cooling pond for the plant. Being a once through cooled 
system, the water in the lake, and consequently the water discharged from the ponds, is 
recycled multiple times, reused within the plant, and then discharged again into the lake. It is 
therefore imperative that this water be suitable for use 
We have met with the City of Lawton to begin the contract renewal process and we will be 
emphasizing the quality of the water which they supply from their POTW to the AEP Comanche 
Plant. The city is working to ensure a continued supply of good quality water. With regards to 
the Flint Creek Plant and the City of Gentry, AEP is planning to initiate a sampling program to 
determine if the city's effluent contains elevated levels of metals, specifically cyanide and 
mercury, which could affect AEP's compliance program. AEP has had discussions with the city 
about these potential problems and looks forward to continued cooperation. 
 
Appendix 13: GRI 103-1, 103-2, 103-3 Management Approach: Supplier 
Environmental Assessment 
 
AEP has general contract language requiring adherence to all laws and regulations in its 
standard terms and conditions. In addition, contracts for all major construction contractors 
supporting Transmission projects and Generation projects include a Contractor Environmental 
Requirements Document (CERD) to which the contractor must adhere. Distribution 
Procurement is including the CERD in all new applicable construction contracts.  This document 
is a supplement to AEP’s standard terms and conditions. Transmission contractors are also 
required to view an environmental orientation video ahead of working on a project site and 
annually thereafter. Based on the type of work performed, some contractors and consultants 
must also undergo an assessment of their environmental skills, experience and qualifications 
before approved to perform environmental-related scope. For contracts supporting projects and 
other Generation work, contractors are also required under the CERD to participate in a site-
specific Environmental Work Compliance Assessment at the project or facility level.

34 
 
Appendix 14: GRI 401-1 New Employee Hires and Employee Turnover 
Hires in 2020 
State 
Gender 
Active 
Employees 
Total 
Hires 
Hires 
Under 
30 
% Hires 
Under 30 
Hires 
30 to 50 
% Hires 
30 to 50 
Hires 
Over 50 
% Hires 
Over 50 
AR 
M 
332 
17 
10 
58.82% 
7 
41.18% 
0 
0% 
AR 
F 
28 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0.0% 
0 
0% 
CA 
M 
5 
4 
0 
0% 
4 
100% 
0 
0% 
CA 
F 
10 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
DC 
M 
2 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
DC 
F 
5 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
FL 
M 
3 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
FL 
F 
2 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
IL 
M 
101 
2 
2 
100% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
IL 
F 
35 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
IN 
M 
877 
34 
12 
35.29% 
21 
61.76% 
1 
2.94% 
IN 
F 
192 
5 
1 
20% 
4 
80% 
0 
0% 
KS 
M 
0 
1 
0 
0% 
1 
100% 
0 
0% 
KS 
F 
1 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
KY 
M 
349 
17 
10 
58.82% 
6 
35.29% 
1 
5.88% 
KY 
F 
52 
2 
1 
50% 
1 
50% 
0 
0% 
LA 
M 
614 
15 
9 
60% 
4 
26.67% 
2 
13.33% 
LA 
F 
236 
11 
1 
9.09% 
10 
90.91% 
0 
0% 
MD 
M 
1 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
MD 
F 
0 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
MI 
M 
1,051 
30 
17 
56.67% 
13 
43.33% 
0 
0% 
MI 
F 
189 
7 
2 
28.57% 
5 
71.43% 
0 
0% 
MN 
M 
1 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
MN 
F 
1 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
MO 
M 
0 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
MO 
F 
1 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
NC 
M 
3 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
NC 
F 
2 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
NE 
M 
19 
2 
0 
0% 
2 
100% 
0 
0% 
NE 
F 
1 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
OH 
M 
4,476 
181 
77 
42.54% 
85 
46.96% 
19 
10.50% 
OH 
F 
1,522 
87 
25 
28.74% 
49 
56.32% 
13 
14.94% 
OK 
M 
1,327 
77 
49 
63.64% 
27 
35.06% 
1 
1.30% 
OK 
F 
341 
21 
5 
23.81% 
13 
61.90% 
3 
14.29%

35 
 
OR 
M 
1 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
OR 
F 
0 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
PA 
M 
14 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
PA 
F 
2 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
SC 
M 
0 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
SC 
F 
1 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
TN 
M 
67 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
TN 
F 
10 
2 
1 
50% 
1 
50% 
0 
0% 
TX 
M 
2,208 
78 
47 
60.26% 
30 
38.46% 
1 
1.28% 
TX 
F 
349 
10 
4 
40% 
5 
50% 
1 
10% 
VA 
M 
930 
51 
29 
56.86% 
20 
39.22% 
2 
3.92% 
VA 
F 
134 
5 
4 
80% 
1 
20% 
0 
0% 
WA 
M 
1 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
WA 
F 
0 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
WV 
M 
1,650 
38 
18 
47.37% 
18 
47.37% 
2 
5.26% 
WV 
F 
319 
18 
5 
27.78% 
9 
50% 
4 
22.22% 
 
 
Terminations in 2020 
State 
Gender 
Total 
Terminations 
Terms 
Under 
30 
% Terms 
Under 30 
Terms 
30 to 50 
% 
Terms 
30 to 51 
Terms 
Over 50 
%Terms 
Over 50 
AR 
M 
21 
1 
4.76% 
6 
28.57% 
14 
66.67% 
AR 
F 
1 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
1 
100% 
CA 
M 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
CA 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
DC 
M 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
DC 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
FL 
M 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
FL 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
GA 
M 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
GA 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
HI 
M 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
HI 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
IL 
M 
15 
2 
13.33% 
5 
33.33% 
8 
53.33% 
IL 
F 
4 
1 
25% 
2 
50% 
1 
25% 
IN 
M 
48 
6 
12.50% 
11 
22.92% 
31 
64.58% 
IN 
F 
17 
0 
0% 
5 
29.41% 
12 
70.59% 
KS 
M 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0%

36 
 
KS 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
KY 
M 
21 
1 
4.76% 
2 
9.52% 
18 
85.71% 
KY 
F 
7 
1 
14.29% 
1 
14.29% 
5 
71.43% 
LA 
M 
132 
10 
7.58% 
57 
43.18% 
65 
49.24% 
LA 
F 
21 
0 
0% 
11 
52.38% 
10 
47.62% 
MD 
M 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
MD 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
MI 
M 
69 
5 
7.25% 
13 
18.84% 
51 
73.91% 
MI 
F 
12 
2 
16.67% 
3 
25% 
7 
58.33% 
MN 
M 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
MN 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
MO 
M 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
MO 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
NC 
M 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
NC 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
NE 
M 
20 
0 
0% 
9 
45% 
11 
55% 
NE 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
OH 
M 
346 
36 
10.40% 
88 
25.43% 
222 
64.16% 
OH 
F 
155 
16 
10.32% 
43 
27.74% 
96 
61.94% 
OK 
M 
81 
13 
16.05% 
21 
25.93% 
47 
58.02% 
OK 
F 
24 
2 
8.33% 
6 
25% 
16 
66.67% 
OR 
M 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
OR 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
PA 
M 
1 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
1 
100% 
PA 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
SC 
M 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
SC 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
TN 
M 
2 
0 
0% 
1 
50% 
1 
50% 
TN 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
TX 
M 
157 
11 
7.01% 
33 
21.02% 
113 
71.97% 
TX 
F 
24 
3 
12.50% 
3 
12.50% 
18 
75% 
VA 
M 
58 
6 
10.34% 
6 
10.34% 
46 
79.31% 
VA 
F 
5 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
5 
100% 
WA 
M 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
WA 
F 
0 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
0 
0% 
WV 
M 
118 
15 
12.71% 
20 
16.95% 
83 
70.34% 
WV 
F 
24 
4 
16.67% 
6 
25.00% 
14 
58.33%

37 
 
Turnover in 2020 
State 
Gender 
Turnover Under 30 
Turnover 30 to 50 
Turnover Over 50 
AR 
M 
0.30% 
1.81% 
4.22% 
AR 
F 
0% 
0% 
3.57% 
CA 
M 
0% 
0% 
0% 
CA 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
DC 
M 
0% 
0% 
0% 
DC 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
FL 
M 
0% 
0% 
0% 
FL 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
GA 
M 
0% 
0% 
0% 
GA 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
HI 
M 
0% 
0% 
0% 
HI 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
IL 
M 
1.98% 
4.95% 
7.92% 
IL 
F 
2.86% 
5.71% 
2.86% 
IN 
M 
0.68% 
1.25% 
3.53% 
IN 
F 
0% 
2.60% 
6.25% 
KS 
M 
0% 
0% 
0% 
KS 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
KY 
M 
0.29% 
0.57% 
5.16% 
KY 
F 
1.92% 
1.92% 
9.62% 
LA 
M 
1.63% 
9.28% 
10.59% 
LA 
F 
0% 
4.66% 
4.24% 
MD 
M 
0% 
0% 
0% 
MD 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
MI 
M 
0.48% 
1.24% 
4.85% 
MI 
F 
1.06% 
1.59% 
3.70% 
MN 
M 
0% 
0% 
0% 
MN 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
MO 
M 
0% 
0% 
0% 
MO 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
NC 
M 
0% 
0% 
0% 
NC 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
NE 
M 
0% 
47.37% 
57.89% 
NE 
F 
0% 
0.00% 
0% 
OH 
M 
0.80% 
1.97% 
4.96% 
OH 
F 
1.05% 
2.83% 
6.31% 
OK 
M 
0.98% 
1.58% 
3.54%

38 
 
OK 
F 
0.59% 
1.76% 
4.69% 
OR 
M 
0% 
0% 
0% 
OR 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
PA 
M 
0% 
0% 
7.14% 
PA 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
SC 
M 
0% 
0% 
0% 
SC 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
TN 
M 
0% 
1.49% 
1.49% 
TN 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
TX 
M 
0.50% 
1.49% 
5.12% 
TX 
F 
0.86% 
0.86% 
5.16% 
VA 
M 
0.65% 
0.65% 
4.95% 
VA 
F 
0% 
0% 
3.73% 
WA 
M 
0% 
0% 
0% 
WA 
F 
0% 
0% 
0% 
WV 
M 
0.91% 
1.21% 
5.03% 
WV 
F 
1.25% 
1.88% 
4.39% 
 
Appendix 15: GRI 401-3 Number and retention rates of employees 
entitled to, that took, and that returned to work from parental leave  
Metric 
Male 
Female 
Report the number of employees by gender that were entitled to parental 
leave. 
13,760 
3,340 
Report the number of employees by gender that took parental leave. 
554 
65 
Report the number of employees who returned to work after parental leave 
ended, by gender. 
552 
61 
 
Return To Work Rate 
Male: 
100% 
Female: 
98% 
This rate was determined by dividing the total number of employees 
who had returned to work by the total number of employees who had 
taken parental leave.  
 
Retention Rate 
Male: 
99% 
Female: 
88% 
This rate was determined by taking the number of parental leaves that 
began during the months of January through March of 2020 and 
dividing by the number of employees still employed at AEP as of April 
2021. 
 
The Parental Bonding Leave Program offers 80 hours of paid time off within a "rolling" 26-pay 
period timeframe (approximately one year) to eligible fathers, mothers, domestic partners, and

39 
 
adoptive parents who wish to take time off to care for a newborn or newly adopted child, or 
provide support for his or her family following birth or adoption. 
Full-time employees actively at work at the time of birth/adoption, and at the time leave is 
requested and taken, are eligible for paid parental bonding leave. If the birth mother is an AEP 
employee, her time off in connection with the birth of the child is covered under the AEP Sick 
Leave Policy.  Parental Bonding Leave is a separate benefit that may be used in addition to sick 
leave, subject to the guidelines below. 
Up to 80 hours of Parental Bonding Leave may be taken at any time, in full workday intervals, 
within the 26 pay periods (approximately one year) following adoption or birth, subject to 
supervisory approval. 
Parental Bonding Leave runs concurrently with 12-week leave benefits under FMLA. Employees 
are required to take paid leave prior to unpaid leave under FMLA. 
AEP's sick pay plan provides paid time off for childbirth and recovery, as well as for prenatal 
care and diagnostics prior to the birth of your child. 
The standard leave period for maternity leave is six weeks after childbirth. If you experience 
complications requiring additional time off, you will be asked to provide supporting 
documentation to AEP's Integrated Disability Management (IDM) Recovery Center. While on 
maternity leave, you'll receive either 100% or 60% of your pay based on your years of service, 
up to a maximum of 1,040 hours of sick pay within the last 26 pay periods. 
In addition to sick leave, you may use other paid time off such as vacation, personal days, and 
parental bonding leave to extend your time off. Also, if you qualify for leave under the Family 
Medical Leave Act (FMLA), you may take any remaining unpaid leave available. 
 
Appendix 16: GRI 404-1 Average Hours of Training  
 
 
 
Employee Category 
Hours 
Student 
Count 
Average 
Hours 
Administrative Support 
Workers 
17,484.26 
1,182 
14.79 
Craft Workers 
351,435.53 
4,854 
72.40 
Executive/Sr Level Officials 
4,415.6 
233 
18.95 
First/Mid Level Officials 
127,085.09 
2,950 
43.08 
Laborers and Helpers 
2,467.93 
45 
54.84 
No EEO-1 Reporting 
29,880.95 
1,269 
23.55 
Operatives 
21,994.47 
430 
51.15 
Professionals 
158,646.78 
5,683 
27.92 
Service Workers 
735.75 
13 
56.60 
Technicians 
61,353.70 
1,491 
41.15 
Total 
775,500.06

40 
 
GENDER Hours 
Student 
Count 
Average Hours 
F 
78,428.2 
3,603 
21.77 
M 
697,071.9 
14,547 
47.92 
Total 
775,500 
18,150 
/ 
 
Appendix 17: GRI 404-3 Percentage of Employees Receiving Regular 
Performance and Career Development Reviews 
Gender 
Employees With 
Performance Coaching 
Forms 
Total 
Employees 
% of Employees With 
Performance Coaching 
Forms 
M 
9,101 
13,539 
67.22% 
F 
2,984 
3,325 
89.74% 
Total 
12,085 
16,864 
71.66% 
 
Appendix 18: GRI 405-2 Ratio of Basic Salary and Remuneration of 
Women to Men 
Employee 
Category 
State 
Female 
Avg. 
Salary 
Male Avg. 
Salary 
Female/ 
Male % 
Average 
Salary 
Female 
Average 
Remuneration 
Male Average 
Remuneration 
Female/Male % 
Average 
Remuneration 
Executive/Sr 
Level Officials 
IL 
$0  
$272,229  
0% 
$0  
$1,033,527  
0% 
Executive/Sr 
Level Officials 
IN 
$0  
$256,330  
0% 
$0  
$820,722  
0% 
Executive/Sr 
Level Officials 
KY 
$0  
$227,573  
0% 
$0  
$699,511  
0% 
Executive/Sr 
Level Officials 
LA 
$0  
$250,357  
0% 
$0  
$801,844  
0% 
Executive/Sr 
Level Officials 
MI 
$256,399  $269,662  
95% 
$803,484  
$1,028,992  
78% 
Executive/Sr 
Level Officials 
OH 
$247,197  $281,995  
88% 
$832,186  
$1,107,282  
75% 
Executive/Sr 
Level Officials 
OK 
$260,670  $218,928  
119% 
$912,212  
$618,549  
147% 
Executive/Sr 
Level Officials 
TX 
$401,086  $246,952  
162% 
$1,566,493  
$667,600  
235% 
Executive/Sr 
Level Officials 
VA 
$190,443  $215,447  
88% 
$532,149  
$635,640  
84% 
Executive/Sr 
Level Officials 
WV 
$0  
$259,470  
0% 
$0  
$829,580  
0%

41 
 
First/Mid Level 
Officials 
AR 
$122,502  $116,079  
106% 
$283,044  
$262,973  
108% 
First/Mid Level 
Officials 
IL 
$121,902  $123,515  
99% 
$292,888  
$290,227  
101% 
First/Mid Level 
Officials 
IN 
$107,379  $114,147  
94% 
$237,348  
$266,069  
89% 
First/Mid Level 
Officials 
KY 
$112,467  $108,565  
104% 
$256,593  
$260,343  
99% 
First/Mid Level 
Officials 
LA 
$118,890  $127,698  
93% 
$273,098  
$296,686  
92% 
First/Mid Level 
Officials 
MI 
$125,301  $129,790  
97% 
$290,052  
$311,334  
93% 
First/Mid Level 
Officials 
OH 
$135,994  $128,140  
106% 
$324,328  
$305,542  
106% 
First/Mid Level 
Officials 
OK 
$124,637  $123,265  
101% 
$285,548  
$284,225  
100% 
First/Mid Level 
Officials 
TX 
$123,093  $119,500  
103% 
$279,646  
$276,190  
101% 
First/Mid Level 
Officials 
VA 
$118,239  $113,595  
104% 
$269,537  
$264,202  
102% 
First/Mid Level 
Officials 
WV 
$102,434  $115,289  
89% 
$228,245  
$268,112  
85% 
Professionals 
AR 
$74,927  
$97,625  
77% 
$160,132  
$213,303  
75% 
Professionals 
IL 
$84,311  
$85,147  
99% 
$182,543  
$179,615  
102% 
Professionals 
IN 
$76,644  
$91,969  
83% 
$165,047  
$202,422  
82% 
Professionals 
KY 
$76,489  
$90,758  
84% 
$164,141  
$199,764  
82% 
Professionals 
LA 
$83,268  
$98,928  
84% 
$180,706  
$219,599  
82% 
Professionals 
MI 
$92,787  
$112,085  
83% 
$202,968  
$250,083  
81% 
Professionals 
OH 
$88,362  
$98,704  
90% 
$190,669  
$215,379  
89% 
Professionals 
OK 
$83,030  
$97,195  
85% 
$178,232  
$212,554  
84% 
Professionals 
TX 
$85,852  
$92,747  
93% 
$184,908  
$204,353  
90% 
Professionals 
VA 
$78,711  
$91,662  
86% 
$168,918  
$200,104  
84% 
Professionals 
WV 
$80,087  
$99,594  
80% 
$172,850  
$218,919  
79% 
Technicians 
AR 
$87,235  
$87,132  
100% 
$195,209  
$197,256  
99% 
Technicians 
IN 
$66,268  
$75,006  
88% 
$147,817  
$170,265  
87% 
Technicians 
KY 
$72,637  
$74,133  
98% 
$161,529  
$170,488  
95% 
Technicians 
LA 
$70,469  
$78,898  
89% 
$151,830  
$176,602  
86% 
Technicians 
MI 
$83,105  
$89,847  
92% 
$190,447  
$205,982  
92% 
Technicians 
OH 
$63,071  
$74,199  
85% 
$135,292  
$166,466  
81% 
Technicians 
OK 
$71,072  
$79,560  
89% 
$151,524  
$180,797  
84% 
Technicians 
TX 
$62,407  
$80,050  
78% 
$134,706  
$183,386  
73% 
Technicians 
VA 
$73,619  
$71,546  
103% 
$162,412  
$158,292  
103%

42 
 
Technicians 
WV 
$79,286  
$81,122  
98% 
$176,054  
$183,066  
96% 
Administrative 
Support 
Workers 
AR 
$51,932  
$0  
100% 
$108,528  
$0  
100% 
Administrative 
Support 
Workers 
IL 
$46,890  
$41,716  
112% 
$108,276  
$87,794  
123% 
Administrative 
Support 
Workers 
IN 
$53,409  
$49,307  
108% 
$113,304  
$105,293  
108% 
Administrative 
Support 
Workers 
KY 
$49,298  
$0  
100% 
$104,575  
$0  
100% 
Administrative 
Support 
Workers 
LA 
$46,066  
$43,752  
105% 
$98,538  
$91,957  
107% 
Administrative 
Support 
Workers 
MI 
$55,047  
$51,584  
107% 
$118,403  
$109,503  
108% 
Administrative 
Support 
Workers 
OH 
$47,640  
$42,686  
112% 
$99,971  
$88,974  
112% 
Administrative 
Support 
Workers 
OK 
$46,838  
$43,164  
109% 
$98,481  
$89,945  
109% 
Administrative 
Support 
Workers 
TX 
$49,100  
$47,603  
103% 
$103,869  
$100,089  
104% 
Administrative 
Support 
Workers 
VA 
$54,249  
$46,537  
117% 
$114,749  
$97,556  
118% 
Administrative 
Support 
Workers 
WV 
$45,325  
$42,924  
106% 
$95,665  
$90,234  
106% 
Craft 
Workers 
AR 
$79,456  
$83,513  
95% 
$174,033  
$191,055  
91% 
Craft 
Workers 
IL 
$0  
$70,810  
0% 
$0  
$176,194  
0% 
Craft 
Workers 
IN 
$64,876  
$74,727  
87% 
$143,001  
$177,762  
80% 
Craft 
Workers 
KY 
$63,856  
$75,219  
85% 
$136,458  
$182,329  
75% 
Craft 
Workers 
LA 
$69,504  
$81,277  
86% 
$159,274  
$202,236  
79% 
Craft 
Workers 
MI 
$71,364  
$82,259  
87% 
$168,688  
$196,231  
86% 
Craft 
Workers 
OH 
$65,516  
$76,122  
86% 
$143,874  
$179,581  
80% 
Craft 
Workers 
OK 
$81,234  
$82,951  
98% 
$190,194  
$194,153  
98%

43 
 
Craft 
Workers 
TX 
$65,209  
$80,645  
81% 
$145,783  
$192,220  
76% 
Craft 
Workers 
VA 
$70,571  
$77,767  
91% 
$153,003  
$179,028  
85% 
Craft 
Workers 
WV 
$76,956  
$78,414  
98% 
$177,200  
$183,786  
96% 
Operatives 
AR 
$0  
$76,297  
0% 
$0  
$174,794  
0% 
Operatives 
IL 
$0  
$67,645  
0% 
$0  
$178,014  
0% 
Operatives 
IN 
$60,986  
$47,756  
128% 
$128,082  
$104,096  
123% 
Operatives 
KY 
$50,461  
$49,265  
102% 
$112,469  
$114,522  
98% 
Operatives 
LA 
$54,558  
$62,615  
87% 
$114,044  
$139,964  
81% 
Operatives 
MI 
$65,374  
$64,059  
102% 
$135,524  
$138,544  
98% 
Operatives 
OH 
$50,345  
$49,034  
103% 
$106,863  
$104,958  
102% 
Operatives 
OK 
$56,722  
$58,088  
98% 
$120,070  
$122,959  
98% 
Operatives 
TX 
$62,483  
$63,497  
98% 
$135,798  
$140,322  
97% 
Operatives 
VA 
$32,947  
$47,166  
70% 
$70,367  
$102,092  
69% 
Operatives 
WV 
$64,563  
$46,221  
140% 
$144,084  
$102,957  
140% 
Laborers and 
Helpers 
TX 
$35,277  
$42,578  
83% 
$72,511  
$91,485  
79% 
Laborers and 
Helpers 
WV 
$47,052  
$46,976  
100% 
$94,104  
$98,889  
95% 
Service 
Workers 
LA 
$38,418  
$0  
100% 
$81,963  
$0  
100% 
Service 
Workers 
WV 
$45,327  
$47,052  
96% 
$96,539  
$101,393  
95% 
No EEO-1 
Reporting 
OH 
$0  
$32,094  
0% 
$0  
$64,414  
0% 
No EEO-1 
Reporting 
WV 
$0  
$19,604  
0% 
$0  
$39,358  
0% 
 
 
Appendix 19: GRI 406-1 Incidents of Discrimination and Corrective Actions Taken 
For purposes of this report, any charge of discrimination is treated as an "incident." In 2020, no 
incidents were filed with the EEOC or applicable state agency. 
Appendix 20: GRI 103-1, 103-2, 103-3 Management Approach: Child 
Labor, and GRI 103-1, 103-2, 103-3 Management Approach: Forced or 
Compulsory Labor 
AEP requires all Employees and supplier/contractors to adhere to all laws and regulations as 
stated in either the Principles of business conduct or standard terms and conditions.

44 
 
No aspect of AEP operations is more important than the health and safety of people. Zero Harm 
is at the heart of everything we do at AEP. It means we believe all occupational illnesses and 
injuries are preventable because we care that everyone goes home in the same or better 
condition than when they came to work. These requirements reflect AEP’s minimum 
expectations regarding safety, health, and environmental practices and may exceed the 
requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. 
Appendix 21: GRI 103-1, 103-2, 103-3 Management Approach: Supplier 
Social Assessment 
At AEP, we believe in doing the right thing every time for our customers, each other and our 
future. We expect all employees to uphold the highest of ethical standards and that 
management is one of uncompromising integrity. We expect the same from our suppliers. 
AEP values its relationships with our suppliers, energy providers, and other organizations 
looking to do business with us and we want to be as transparent as possible in our expectations 
of them. AEP’s Supplier Code of Conduct acts as a guide for suppliers in carrying out their 
responsibilities and defines both the ethical and legal standards by which they must operate.  
Our Supplier Code of Conduct is a guidepost as we strive to build a diverse pool of suppliers 
focused on inclusion of others and powering a new and brighter future for our customers and 
communities. 
Please visit AEP’s Supplier Code of Conduct and Supply Chain Management webpage to learn 
more. 
 
Appendix 22: GRI 103-1, 103-2, 103-3 Management Approach: and GRI 418-1 
Substantiated Complaints Concerning Breaches of Customer Privacy 
and Losses of Customer Data 
AEP has not had substantiated complaints concerning breaches, nor experienced incidents of 
loss, regarding customer or consumer data from our network in 2020.   
AEP continues to work with our third party vendors to ensure that best practices around data 
protection are performed. 
 
Appendix 23: GRI EU11 Average Generation Efficiency 
By State: 
State 
2020 Average Generation Efficiency (%) 
Coal 
Gas 
Nuclear 
All Fuels 
AR 
34.7% 
28.5% 
  
34.6% 
IN 
34.4% 
  
  
34.4% 
KY 
  
34.5% 
  
34.5% 
LA 
  
47% 
  
47%

45 
 
MI 
  
  
33.2% 
33.2% 
OH 
32.6% 
50% 
  
45.4% 
OK 
32% 
35.5% 
  
34.6% 
TX 
30.2% 
28.7% 
  
30% 
VA 
  
30.3% 
  
30.3% 
WV 
33.6% 
27.6% 
  
33.6% 
 
By Operating Company: 
Operating 
Company 
2020 Average Generation Efficiency (%) 
Coal 
Gas 
Nuclear 
All Fuels 
APCO 
34% 
47.5% 
  
36.5% 
I&M 
34.4% 
  
33.2% 
33.4% 
KPCO 
31.9% 
34.5% 
  
32.4% 
GENCO 
32.6% 
  
  
32.6% 
PSO 
31.5% 
35.5% 
  
33.9% 
SWEPCO 
32.1% 
41.6% 
  
34.4% 
Generation Efficiency Data Notes:  
1. Figures include AEP-operated plants only. 
2. Figures are based on net generation and measured fuel usage. 
3. Figures for coal also include some energy from secondary startup fuel (oil or gas). 
4. In regards to confidence level, the average generation figures listed are based on metered energy output 
(generator) and metered energy input (fuel consumption and heating value for fossil units; reactor calorific heat 
for nuclear units).  The instruments used for these measurements are maintained and calibrated.  We do not 
have a specific uncertainty value available. 
 
 
Appendix 24: GRI EU12 Total Distribution and Transmission Losses 
Losses and energy unaccounted for at the jurisdiction, state and company level are provided.  
These losses reflect what occurred in 2020. No estimate of technical / non-technical losses 
have been developed.   
Sales (GWh) 
Energy 
Requirements 
(GWh) 
Losses 
(GWh) 
Loss 
Percentage 
Jurisdiction Level 
APCo Virginia 
15,613 
16,741 
1,128 
6.70% 
APCo West Virginia 
11,933 
12,970 
1,037 
8.00% 
I&M Indiana 
17,674 
19,007 
1,333 
7.00% 
I&M Michigan 
2,966 
3,282 
316 
9.60% 
Kingsport Power 
1,661 
1,700 
39 
2.30% 
Kentucky Power 
5,193 
5,576 
383 
6.90% 
Ohio Power 
41,748 
44,527 
2,779 
6.20% 
PSO 
17,711 
18,781 
1,071 
5.70% 
SWEPCO-Arkansas 
4,353 
4,529 
176 
3.90% 
SWEPCO-Louisiana 
6,198 
6,681 
482 
7.20%

46 
 
SWEPCO-Texas 
7,611 
8,058 
447 
5.50% 
TCC 
25,810 
27,200 
1,389 
5.10% 
TNC 
6,139 
6,478 
339 
5.20% 
Wheeling Power 
4,362 
4,468 
106 
2.40% 
AEP Total 
168,973 
179,999 
11,026 
6.10% 
State Level 
Arkansas 
4,353 
4,529 
176 
3.90% 
Indiana 
17,674 
19,007 
1,333 
7.00% 
Kentucky 
5,193 
5,576 
383 
6.90% 
Louisiana 
6,198 
6,681 
482 
7.20% 
Michigan 
2,966 
3,282 
316 
9.60% 
Ohio 
41,748 
44,527 
2,779 
6.20% 
Oklahoma 
17,711 
18,781 
1,071 
5.70% 
Tennessee 
1,661 
1,700 
39 
2.30% 
Texas 
39,561 
41,736 
2,176 
5.20% 
Virginia 
15,613 
16,741 
1,128 
6.70% 
West Virginia 
16,295 
17,438 
1,143 
6.60% 
AEP Total 
168,973 
179,999 
11,026 
6.10% 
Company 
AEP Ohio 
41,748 
44,527 
2,779 
6.20% 
AEP Texas 
31,949 
33,678 
1,728 
5.10% 
Appalachian Power 
Company 
29,246 
31,412 
2,165 
6.90% 
Indiana Michigan Power 
Company 
20,640 
22,289 
1,649 
7.40% 
Kentucky Power 
Company 
5,193 
5,576 
383 
6.90% 
Kingsport Power 
Company* 
1,661 
1,700 
39 
2.30% 
Public Service Company 
of Oklahoma 
17,711 
18,781 
1,071 
5.70% 
Southwestern Electric 
Power Company 
18,163 
19,268 
1,105 
5.70% 
Wheeling Power 
Company 
4,362 
4,468 
106 
2.40% 
AEP Total 
169,012 
179,999 
10,987 
6.10% 
*Note:  Kingsport Power included APCo total. 
 
Appendix 25: GRI EU 22 Population Displacement and Compensation 
When, in the course of expanding or creating new generation or transmission facilities, AEP 
finds it necessary to acquire property, the company seeks to ensure that no economic 
displacement occurs. If properties are purchased for company use, AEP endeavors to enter into

47 
 
purchase agreements that compensate property owners in a fashion that precludes economic 
displacement. 
We consider a person/people displaced once the purchase transaction has closed and the 
property is in AEP's name. In many cases, AEP continues to allow the property owner to 
continue living on or use the premises (with a lease agreement) up to the date we begin actually 
utilizing the site. Nevertheless, we consider the landowner/family displaced as of the date the 
property changes hands. 
Company 
Closed 
Transactions 
in 2020 
Number of 
People Displaced 
in 2020 
AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc. 
3 
0 
AEP Kentucky Transmission Company, Inc. 
1 
0 
AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. 
9 
0 
AEP Oklahoma Transmission Company, Inc. 
3 
0 
AEP Texas Central Company 
6 
0 
AEP Texas Central Company 
10 
0 
AEP Texas North Company 
4 
0 
AEP Texas North Company 
12 
1 
AEP West Virginia Transmission Company, Inc. 
5 
6 
Appalachian Power Company 
9 
7 
Appalachian Power Company 
4 
0 
Electric Transmission Texas, LLC 
1 
0 
Indiana Michigan Power Company 
7 
4 
Indiana Michigan Power Company 
8 
4 
Kentucky Power Company 
4 
0 
Ohio Power Company 
4 
2 
Ohio Power Company 
8 
3 
Public Service of Oklahoma 
3 
0 
Public Service of Oklahoma 
1 
0 
Public Service of Oklahoma 
2 
0 
Southwestern Electric Power Company 
5 
0 
Southwestern Electric Power Company 
1 
0 
Southwestern Electric Power Company 
3 
0 
Southwestern Electric Power Company-TX 
5 
0 
AEP Total 
118 
27

48 
 
Appendix 26: GRI EU25 Public Injuries and Fatalities 
Public Fatality Breakdown  
2020 Data 
Total number of public fatalities 
13 
Number of fatalities to members of the public due to Electrical 
contact with assets 
5 
Number of fatalities to members of the public due to Electrical 
contact with unintentional energized metallic object 
0 
Number of fatalities to members of the public due to Collision with 
poles 
4 
Number of fatalities to members of the public due to Pole-related 
(collapse or maintenance) 
0 
Number of fatalities to members of the public due to Auto accidents 
0 
Number of fatalities to members of the public due to Drowning  
0 
Number of fatalities to members of the public due to Natural Gas 
0 
Number of fatalities to members of the public due to Other 
4 
 
Public Injury Breakdown  
2020 Data 
Total number of public injuries 
45 
Number of injuries to members of the public due to Electrical contact with assets 
15 
Number of injuries to members of the public due to Electrical contact with 
unintentional energized metallic object 
0 
Number of injuries to members of the public due to Collision with poles 
3 
Number of injuries to members of the public due to Pole-related (collapse or 
maintenance) 
0 
Number of injuries to members of the public due to Auto accidents 
17 
Number of injuries to members of the public due to Natural Gas 
0 
Number of injuries to members of the public due to Other 
10 
 
Public Health and Safety Legal Cases 
2020 
Data 
Number of health and safety legal Cases with 
members of the public involved  
9

49 
 
Appendix 27: GRI EU27 Disconnections for Non-Payment 
2020 Customer Disconnects 
Total Number of Residential 
Customer Disconnects 
252,456 
Total number of Residential 
Reconnects within 7 Days 
197,963 
Total Number of Customer 
Disconnects 
265,204 
Total Number of reconnects 
within 7 days 
206,391 
* Credit-related service terminations were suspended during a portion of the year due to COVID-19 mitigation. This 
activity was initiated again in some areas in a limited manner. 
 
Appendix 28: EU-MA EU-DMA - Aspect: Provision of Information 
AEP utilizes multiple communication channels to address the needs of all customer classes. For 
example, AEP provides a toll free TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf) service that is 
available 24/7 for hearing impaired. All customers are able to access their AEP operating 
company website to perform a variety of functions: view bill, sign up for paperless billing, 
account balance information, payment and usage history, start/stop service, update phone 
number, mailing address, report power outages and make payments on their American Electric 
Power 2018 GRI Report 62 accounts. AEP allows for multiple payment options. Customers take 
advantage of our Third Party vendors offering translation in a variety of languages. AEP also 
prints Braille bills for the visually impaired. The monthly customer bill messaging and inserts 
notify customers of many energy efficiency programs and other products and services.  
• 
 Customers are able to communicate with AEP via online, social media, IVR, phone, 
email, mail and fax  
• 
A TDD message is displayed on bills.  
• 
All websites give access to the above stated functions.  
• 
Customers are able to make payments by phone, mail, at authorized payment stations, 
electronically through their financial institution, through their operating company website 
or by participating in a checkless payment plan.  
• 
Our Third Party Vendor, Language Select, translates bills in a variety of languages. 
Braille bills are processed through a vendor – The League of the Blind and Disabled.  
• 
The Regulatory, Marketing, Energy Efficiency Programs and Corporate Communications 
groups submit bill messages and inserts.