AEP Texas Central Company and American Electric Power Company, Inc., Form 8-K
re Texas true-up
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20549
FORM
8-K
CURRENT
REPORT
PURSUANT
TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Date
of report (Date of earliest event reported)
|
March
6, 2007
|
AMERICAN
ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY,
INC.
|
(Exact
Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
(State
or
Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)
1-3525
|
13-4922640
|
(Commission
File Number)
|
(IRS
Employer Identification No.)
|
AEP
TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY
|
(Exact
Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
(State
or
Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)
0-346
|
74-0550600
|
(Commission
File Number)
|
(IRS
Employer Identification No.)
|
1
Riverside Plaza, Columbus, OH
|
43215
|
(Address
of Principal Executive Offices)
|
(Zip
Code)
|
(Registrant’s
Telephone Number, Including Area Code)
(Former
Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)
Check
the
appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously
satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following
provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):
[
]
|
Written
communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17
CFR
230.425)
|
|
|
[
]
|
Soliciting
material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14a-12)
|
|
|
[
]
|
Pre-commencement
communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17
CFR
240.14d-2(b))
|
|
|
[
]
|
Pre-commencement
communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17
CFR
240.13e-4(c))
|
As
previously disclosed, in February 2007 the Texas District Court judge hearing
the various appeals of the final true-up order for AEP Texas Central Company
(TCC) issued a letter containing his preliminary determinations. He generally
affirmed the April 4, 2006 final true-up order of the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (PUCT) with two significant exceptions. The judge ruled that the PUCT
erred when it determined TCC’s stranded cost using the sale of assets method
instead of the Excess Cost Over Market (ECOM) method to value TCC’s nuclear
plant. The judge also determined that the PUCT erred when it concluded it was
required to use the carrying cost rate specified in the true-up order. In
response to a request by TCC, the District Court judge scheduled additional
argument on March 22, 2007 regarding use of the ECOM method to value TCC’s
nuclear plant stranded cost.
On
March
6, 2007, the District Court issued a second letter containing preliminary
determinations. The second letter reversed the earlier ruling that the PUCT
erred when it determined TCC’s stranded cost using the sale of assets method
instead of the ECOM method to value TCC’s nuclear plant. As a result, the
District Court has removed the hearing scheduled for March 22, 2007 from the
docket. The second letter did not alter the judge’s earlier determination that
the PUCT erred when it concluded it was required to use the carrying cost rate
specified in the true-up order, which, if lowered on remand, could result in
a
material adverse change to TCC’s recoverable carrying costs. The second letter
also did not alter the judge’s earlier determination that the PUCT improperly
reduced stranded costs in connection with the sales process, which could have
a
materially favorable effect on TCC.
SIGNATURE
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant
has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto
duly authorized.
|
AMERICAN
ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC.
|
|
AEP
TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
/s/
Thomas G. Berkemeyer
|
|
Name:
|
Thomas
G. Berkemeyer
|
March
7,
2007