COLUMBUS, Ohio, Dec. 7, 1999 – A decision announced today by Vermont´s attorney general to intervene in existing litigation against power plants owned by American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP) ignores regulatory and scientific facts, according to Dale Heydlauff, AEP´s vice president - environmental affairs.

"We continue to be amazed that Northeast states insist on blaming their local environmental problems on sources that are -- in Vermont´s case -- 750 to 900 miles away," Heydlauff said. "The Vermont attorney general told the media that our plants have not invested in modern pollution control equipment. He´s wrong.

"Let´s look at the facts. In the last eight years alone, AEP has spent more than $1 billion installing equipment to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions to address acid rain concerns and meet Clean Air Act requirements," Heydlauff said. "We have cut our rate of sulfur dioxide emissions in half in the past decade. The Clean Air Act requirements for acid rain have not been fully implemented, so AEP and others in our industry are installing emission controls necessary to meet additional requirements that begin next year. This means additional reductions are being made.

"If Vermont is concerned about pollutants that cross its borders, then the state needs to look at its closer neighbors instead of automatically placing the blame on sources more than 700 miles away," Heydlauff said. "The science shows that the effects of emissions from a source diminish with distance. The impact on Vermont of emissions from these distant sources is insignificant."

The suit claims certain projects -- some completed more than a decade ago -- were designed to increase the power plants´ generating capacity in violation of the Clean Air Act. Under the New Source Review requirements of the Clean Air Act, if a source undertakes a major modification that directly results in an emissions increase, it can trigger permitting requirements under the New Source Review program and may subject the source to the installation of additional pollution control technology.

This requirement is not applied to activities such as routine maintenance, replacement of degraded equipment or failed components, or other repairs needed for the reliable, safe and efficient operation of the power plant. AEP projects cited in the lawsuit fit this description, Heydlauff said. None resulted in an increase in generating capacity and many may have helped to lower emissions.

"The company´s activities are consistent with historic industry practices and past EPA guidance," Heydlauff said. "Our maintenance activities are no different than those conducted at power plants in any other state.

"This action is totally without merit and we believe we will prevail should this lawsuit reach trial," Heydlauff said.

AEP, a global energy company, is one of the United States´ largest investor-owned utilities, providing energy to 3 million customers in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. AEP has holdings in the United States, the United Kingdom, China and Australia. Wholly owned subsidiaries provide power engineering, energy consulting and energy management services around the world. The company is based in Columbus, Ohio. On Dec. 22, 1997, AEP announced a definitive merger agreement for a tax-free, stock-for-stock transaction with Central and South West Corp., a public utility holding company based in Dallas.