COLUMBUS, Ohio, Sept. 14, 2007 – American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP) and ITC Holdings Corp. (ITC) today released the results of their joint technical study evaluating the feasibility of extending AEP’s existing 765-kilovolt (kV) transmission infrastructure through Michigan to enhance reliability and support a more efficient generation marketplace. The companies announced the study Nov. 6, 2006.
The study results recommend building three segments of extra-high voltage 765-kV regional transmission in PJM Interconnection (PJM) and Midwest ISO (MISO) that would extend AEP’s existing 765-kV transmission system in the southwest corner of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan east across Michigan and south to the existing 765-kV infrastructure in Ohio. If built as recommended, the project would total approximately 700 miles, about 420 miles in Michigan and 280 miles in northern Ohio.
The study proposes a 765-kV transmission line entering Michigan from the south up to a new transmission station to be built west of Detroit, followed by a segment that would cross Michigan from west to east connecting the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant at Bridgman, Mich., to Detroit, and then a third transmission line that would enter Michigan from the southeast near Canton, Ohio, and extend northwest to Detroit.
“We believe adding significant 765-kV transmission resources in this area and linking them to AEP’s 2,100-mile 765-kV transmission network in the Midwest are keys for implementing the comprehensive, long-term energy future envisioned by Governor Granholm’s 21st Century Energy Plan,” said Michael G. Morris, AEP chairman, president and chief executive officer. “Building a strong transmission network in this region will better utilize existing resources by allowing as much as 5,000 megawatts of additional power to be transported to and through Michigan, expanding access to additional competitive generation options and reducing the amount of generation necessary for reserve needs. This transmission network would increase efficiency by reducing current transmission line losses by approximately 250 megawatts – the size of a small power plant. Extra-high voltage transmission also will provide a reliable, stable electricity delivery system in the region to enhance economic development and support increased development of renewable generation.”
If the entire project were built as proposed in the study, it would cost an estimated $2.6 billion (in 2007 dollars) and would take approximately eight years to complete, assuming three years to site and five years to construct.
“Although the cost of the recommended upgrades sounds significant, transmission costs typically make up less than 10 percent of a customer’s electricity bill. If these costs are allocated to all regional customers, this significant transmission improvement would cost less than 50 cents each month on the bill of an average residential customer using 1,000 kilowatthours per month. Even without considering the reliability improvements, this investment can be more than recouped by the savings realized through access to additional generation resources and by reducing the need to bring additional generation on line,” Morris said.
AEP and ITC have provided copies of the technical report to PJM and MISO for their independent review and evaluation. PJM and MISO are responsible for planning the transmission system upgrades in their respective regions and for evaluating cross-border facilities. The study also will be shared with the Michigan Public Service Commission, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and other interested parties, such as the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. If the project is included in the PJM and MISO transmission upgrade plans, actual siting of the lines would be conducted according to Michigan and Ohio siting processes.
AEP and ITC are investigating the feasibility of forming a joint venture that would develop the project pending MISO and PJM review.
ITC Holdings Corp. (NYSE: ITC) invests in the electricity transmission grid to improve electric reliability, reduce congestion, improve access to markets and lower the overall cost of delivered energy. Through its subsidiaries, ITC is the only independent, publicly traded company engaged exclusively in the transmission of electricity in the United States. ITC is the eighth-largest transmission company in the country based on electric sales. ITCTransmission and Michigan Electric Transmission Company operate contiguous, fully-regulated, high-voltage systems in Michigan´s Lower Peninsula. For more information on ITC Holdings Corp., please visit http://www.itc-holdings.com.
American Electric Power is one of the largest electric utilities in the United States, delivering electricity to more than 5 million customers in 11 states. AEP ranks among the nation’s largest generators of electricity, owning more than 38,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the U.S. AEP also owns the nation’s largest electricity transmission system, a nearly 39,000-mile network that includes more 765 kilovolt extra-high voltage transmission lines than all other U.S. transmission systems combined. AEP’s transmission system directly or indirectly serves about 10 percent of the electricity demand in the Eastern Interconnection, the interconnected transmission system that covers 38 eastern and central U.S. states and eastern Canada, and approximately 11 percent of the electricity demand in ERCOT, the transmission system that covers much of Texas. AEP’s utility units operate as AEP Ohio, AEP Texas, Appalachian Power (in Virginia and West Virginia), AEP Appalachian Power (in Tennessee), Indiana Michigan Power, Kentucky Power, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, and Southwestern Electric Power Company (in Arkansas, Louisiana and east Texas). AEP’s headquarters are in Columbus, Ohio.
This report made by AEP and its Registrant Subsidiaries contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although AEP and each of its Registrant Subsidiaries believe that their expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, any such statements may be influenced by factors that could cause actual outcomes and results to be materially different from those projected. Among the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements are: electric load and customer growth; weather conditions, including storms; available sources and costs of, and transportation for, fuels and the creditworthi-ness of fuel suppliers and transporters; availability of generating capacity and the performance of AEP’s generating plants; AEP’s ability to recover regulatory assets and stranded costs in connection with deregulation; AEP’s ability to recover increases in fuel and other energy costs through regulated or competitive electric rates; AEP’s ability to build or acquire generating capacity when needed at acceptable prices and terms and to recover those costs through applicable rate cases or competitive rates; new legislation, litigation and government regulation including requirements for reduced emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, mercury, carbon, soot or particulate matter and other substances; timing and resolution of pending and future rate cases, negotiations and other regulatory decisions (including rate or other recovery for new investments, transmission service and environmental compliance); resolution of litigation (including pending Clean Air Act enforcement actions and disputes arising from the bankruptcy of Enron Corp. and related matters); AEP’s ability to constrain operation and maintenance costs; the economic climate and growth in AEP’s service territory and changes in market demand and demographic patterns; inflationary and interest rate trends; AEP’s ability to develop and execute a strategy based on a view regarding prices of electricity, natural gas and other energy-related commodities; changes in the creditworthiness of the counterparties with whom AEP has contractual arrangements, including participants in the energy trading market; actions of rating agencies, including changes in the ratings of debt; volatility and changes in markets for electricity, natural gas and other energy-related commodities; changes in utility regulation, including the potential for new legislation in Ohio and membership in and integration into regional transmission organizations; accounting pronouncements periodically issued by accounting standard-setting bodies; the performance of AEP’s pension and other postretirement benefit plans; prices for power that AEP generates and sells at wholesale; changes in technology, particularly with respect to new, developing or alternative sources of generation; other risks and unforeseen events, including wars, the effects of terrorism (including increased security costs), embargoes and other catastrophic events.