AEP, Kentucky Power ask lawmakers to allow securitization of Mitchell plant to fund Kentucky generation

Kentucky Power and American Electric Power officials told the Senate Natural Resources Committee they plan to ask the General Assembly to authorize securitization of Kentucky Power’s 50% undivided interest in the Mitchell Power Plant, a move they said would lower the plant’s nonfuel costs and free capital to invest in dispatchable generation located inside Kentucky.

The company representatives said securitization would refinance the Mitchell asset at lower rates, producing an estimated reduction in annual nonfuel ownership costs of roughly $34 million and offsetting about one-third of the expected cost of adding a new in-state generating unit. They said the proposal would not require closing Mitchell and that Kentucky Power would retain its 50% ownership unless and until the company later pursued a sale.

Cindy Wiseman, president and chief operating officer of Kentucky Power, introduced the company team and told senators the utility’s priorities are “to stabilize and lower rates, to reduce rate volatility, and expand generation within the Commonwealth.” Bill Fuhrman, president and chief executive officer of American Electric Power, said securitization is “one of the best tools that we have for cost reduction” and framed the proposal as a way to “recycle the capital from an out-of-state plant and invest in generation in Eastern Kentucky, all while retaining the capacity from the Mitchell plant.” Alex Vaughn, managing director of regulated pricing, presented financial details and noted accounting distinctions between affiliates.

Committee members repeatedly pressed for details and protections. Sen. Wheeler asked whether securitization would cause Kentucky Power to lose its ownership interest; Fuhrman replied the company would still own 50% and had no current plan to sell the interest. Vaughn said Mitchell appears on Kentucky Power’s books at net book value and has not been impaired, and he explained that Wheeling Power (the plant’s other 50% owner) had made ELG-related investments that affect affiliate net book values. Vaughn also said Kentucky Power’s ability to operate its interest after 2028 depends on having required control equipment in place, and that the affiliates currently use a depreciation schedule through 2040 for the plant in their filings.

Senators asked how securitization proceeds would be held and how the company would be required to invest the funds in Kentucky generation. Company witnesses said securitization and any proposed acquisition or build of in-state generation would proceed in parallel, each requiring regulatory approvals (a financing order and subsequent filings with the Public Service Commission). They told senators the regulator would set the financing rules and that the utility would seek to align timing so securitization proceeds are available when the company acquires or constructs a new dispatchable resource. When asked about guarantees that proceeds would stay in the service territory, witnesses said those kinds of protections or conditions could be addressed in regulatory filings and that they were open to legislative language and amendments.

Committee members suggested sending the plan to the EPIC (Energy Planning and Inventory Commission) for additional study. Multiple senators said they wanted stronger assurances for ratepayers and proposed guardrails that would require proceeds to be reinvested in generation serving Kentucky Power customers; company officials said they would consider proposed legislative language and emphasized the need for timely action to preserve available investment opportunities.

The committee did not take formal action on legislation at the meeting. Chair comments and several senators requested written answers to a list of specific questions and asked the company to follow up within about a week.

Why it matters: Kentucky Power rates in eastern Kentucky are a major political concern, and securitization would transfer the utility’s recovery of a capital asset from traditional regulated cost-of-service treatment into a user-fee financed by bonds. Proponents argue securitization reduces customer cost and frees capital for local investment; critics and some lawmakers want statutory guardrails and regulatory oversight to ensure the proceeds benefit local customers.

What’s next: Company witnesses said they will provide follow-up responses to the committee’s questions and that any securitization plan would require separate legislative authority and subsequent proceedings before the Public Service Commission.