[Hoot Gibson]

RV, feel free to point out any and all mistakes in AEP's press release that addresses the costs of the Obama EPA regulatory program. Explain to us the economic impact of forcing utilities to retire units prematurely to meet burdensome regulations instead of modernizing them as they reach the end of their productive life. Explain why pursuing this policy will not impact the customers of every affected utility shown on the map above.

Go ahead and set me straight on this topic. I know that you are a highly skilled union laborer and I am but a mere engineer and computer programmer but I will do my best to keep up.

Where does AEP have it wrong?

[INDENT]

AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations
Company advocates for more time and flexibility to reduce the negative impact of the proposed EPA rules on customers, jobs and the economy

COLUMBUS, Ohio, June 9, 2011 – American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP) today announced the company’s plan for complying with a series of regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would impact coal-fueled power plants. Based on the regulations as proposed, AEP’s compliance plan would retire nearly 6,000 megawatts (MW) of coal-fueled power generation; upgrade or install new advanced emissions reduction equipment on another 10,100 MW; refuel 1,070 MW of coal generation as 932 MW of natural gas capacity; and build 1,220 MW of natural gas-fueled generation. The cost of AEP’s compliance plan could range from $6 billion to $8 billion in capital investment through the end of the decade. High demand for labor and materials due to a constrained compliance time frame could drive actual costs higher than these estimates. The plan, including retirements, could change significantly depending on the final form of the EPA regulations and regulatory approvals from state commissions.

The retirements and retrofits in the plan are in addition to more than $7.2 billion that AEP has invested since 1990 to reduce emissions from its coal-fueled generation fleet. Annual emissions of nitrogen oxides from AEP plants are 80 percent lower today than in 1990. Sulfur dioxide emissions from AEP plants are 73 percent lower than in 1990. The company currently owns nearly 25,000 MW of coal-fueled generation, approximately 65 percent of its total generating capacity. Coal would fuel approximately 57 percent of AEP’s total generating capacity by the end of the decade.

“We support regulations that achieve long-term environmental benefits while protecting customers, the economy and the reliability of the electric grid, but the cumulative impacts of the EPA’s current regulatory path have been vastly underestimated, particularly in Midwest states dependent on coal to fuel their economies. We have worked for months to develop a compliance plan that will mitigate the impact of these rules for our customers and preserve jobs, but because of the unrealistic compliance timelines in the EPA proposals, we will have to prematurely shut down nearly 25 percent of our current coal-fueled generating capacity, cut hundreds of good power plant jobs, and invest billions of dollars in capital to retire, retrofit and replace coal-fueled power plants. The sudden increase in electricity rates and impacts on state economies will be significant at a time when people and states are still struggling,” said Michael G. Morris, AEP chairman and chief executive officer.

Although some jobs would be created from the installation of emissions reduction equipment, AEP expects a net loss of approximately 600 power plant jobs with annual wages totaling approximately $40 million as a result of compliance with the proposed EPA rules.

[/INDENT]