Utility Capex Reality Check: Smallest Plan, Best Cash Coverage

Last Updated: January 18, 2026 Data Currency: Q3 2025 10-Q filings (ETR 10-Q, AEP 10-Q, SO 10-Q)

---

The Core Comparison: Cash Flow vs. Capex Scale

Metric	ETR	AEP	SO	Best
Operating Cash Flow (TTM)	$5.31B	$6.86B	$9.38B	SO
Investing Outflows (TTM)	$7.06B	~$10.3B*	$12.32B	ETR
Implied Free Cash Flow	-$1.75B	-$3.44B	-$2.94B	ETR
OCF/Investing Coverage	0.75x	0.67x	0.76x	SO/ETR
Announced Capex Plan	$7.6B (4yr)	$72B (5yr)	~$50B (implied)	—
Annual Capex Run Rate	~$1.9B	~$14.4B	~$10B	ETR (smallest)
Capex/OCF Ratio	1.33x	2.10x	1.31x	SO

Source: SEC 10-Q filings Q3 2025 via MetricDuck Note: AEP's TTM investing cash flow includes proceeds from asset dispositions. We use quarterly outflows annualized (~$10.3B) for comparable analysis.

---

For New Investors: What Is Capex Coverage and Why Should You Care?

The Simple Version

Capex (capital expenditures) is money a company spends on long-term assets: power plants, transmission lines, grid infrastructure. Utilities spend heavily because they're regulated monopolies required to maintain and expand the grid.

Operating Cash Flow (OCF) is cash generated from selling electricity to customers—the core business.

The coverage ratio tells you: How much of the capex can the company pay for with the cash it generates?

Coverage Ratio	Meaning	Investor Implication
Above 1.0x	OCF fully covers capex	Self-funding growth, no external capital needed
0.75-1.0x	OCF covers most capex	Moderate borrowing needed, sustainable
0.50-0.75x	OCF covers half	Significant external financing required
Below 0.50x	Heavy dependence on capital markets	Execution and interest rate risk

Why Utilities Can Run Negative FCF (And It's Often OK)

Unlike tech companies or retailers, regulated utilities have a special advantage: guaranteed cost recovery.

Here's how it works:

1. Utility spends $1B building a new power plant
2. Utility files a "rate case" with state regulators
3. Regulators approve rate increases so customers pay for the plant + a profit margin (typically 9-10% return)
4. Utility earns predictable returns on that $1B for 30+ years

The catch: There's timing risk. The utility borrows money today, builds the plant over 3-5 years, and only starts earning approved returns when the plant operates. During construction, the utility is cash flow negative.

What investors should watch:

• Can the utility access debt markets at reasonable rates? (Credit rating matters)
• Are rate cases being approved, or are regulators pushing back?
• Is capex concentrated in one big project (execution risk) or spread across many (diversified)?

---

For Experienced Investors: The Analytical Edge

Why This Comparison Matters Now

The utility sector is experiencing a capital cycle not seen since the 1970s. Data center demand, grid modernization, and clean energy mandates are driving unprecedented capex. But not all capex is equal:

High-quality capex characteristics:

• Specific project identification (not just "transmission upgrades")
• Regulatory pre-approval or clear path to approval
• Tied to contracted customer demand (data centers, industrial load)
• Phased execution with go/no-go decision points

Red flags in capex programs:

• Vague "growth opportunity" language without project specifics
• Multi-year plans that exceed current OCF by 2x+ annually
• Heavy concentration in single mega-projects
• Regulatory jurisdictions with history of cost disallowance

ETR's Disclosure Quality Advantage

Entergy's Q3 2025 10-Q provides project-level specificity that peers lack:

ETR's Year-by-Year Capex: A Declining Trajectory

Most utility capex plans show steady or increasing annual spending. ETR's plan is different:

Year	Planned Capex	YoY Change
2026	$2.0B	—
2027	$2.2B	+10% (peak)
2028	$1.9B	-14%
2029	$1.5B	-21%

Why a declining capex trajectory signals discipline:

• Peak and taper strategy — ETR plans to complete major projects (Ironwood, Jefferson) then scale back
• Reduced external financing needs — Later years require less debt/equity issuance
• Built-in off-ramps — If market conditions deteriorate, 2028-2029 spending is easier to defer

Contrast with AEP: AEP's $72B plan implies ~$14.4B annually for 5 straight years. No tapering disclosed. This "constant burn rate" approach requires sustained capital market access regardless of conditions.

AEP's Data Center Disclosure: Credit Where Due

Fair assessment: While ETR has better capex project disclosure, AEP provides clearer demand driver disclosure:

Compare capex disclosure style:

"Management forecasts approximately $11.9 billion of capital expenditures in 2025. For the five-year period, 2026 through 2030, management forecasts capital expenditures of $72 billion... planned investments for transmission infrastructure and new generation resources."

The difference: ETR names specific projects, regulatory approvals, and timelines. AEP provides aggregate numbers and general categories. When executing $72B over 5 years, specificity matters for accountability.

The Coverage Ratio as a Discipline Signal

ETR's 0.75x coverage means every dollar of capex requires only $0.25 of external financing. At $7B annual investing outflows, that's roughly $1.75B of annual external capital needs.

AEP's 0.67x coverage means every dollar of capex requires $0.33 of external financing. At $10.3B annual investing outflows, that's roughly $3.4B of annual external capital needs.

The compounding effect: Over a 5-year capex cycle, ETR needs ~$8.75B cumulative external financing. AEP needs ~$17B—nearly double. This creates:

• Higher interest expense (dilutes earnings growth)
• Greater sensitivity to credit market conditions
• More equity issuance risk (dilutes existing shareholders)

What This Means in Dollars: Quantifying the Gap

The 0.75x vs 0.67x coverage difference sounds small—8 percentage points. But over a 5-year capex cycle, the dollar impact compounds:

Impact	ETR (0.75x)	AEP (0.67x)	Difference
5-Year External Financing	~$8.75B	~$17B	$8.25B more for AEP
Additional Annual Interest (@ 5.5%)	~$480M	~$935M	$455M/year more for AEP
Cumulative Interest (5 years)	~$2.4B	~$4.7B	$2.3B more interest expense

If 20% of external financing is equity:

• ETR: ~$1.75B equity issuance → ~4-5% dilution
• AEP: ~$3.4B equity issuance → ~7-8% dilution

Why this matters for stock returns: Higher interest expense directly reduces net income. Equity dilution reduces earnings per share even if total earnings grow. AEP needs stronger revenue growth than ETR just to deliver the same EPS growth—a higher bar to clear.

Why ETR's OCF Advantage Is Sustainable

ETR's OCF isn't just larger relative to capex—the drivers are diversified:

From ETR's Q3 2025 10-Q:

• $160.2M from tax credit sales — Nuclear and solar production tax credits monetized in Q3 2025
• Higher customer collections — Improved utility billing and collection efficiency
• Offset by higher fuel payments — Cost managed through rate riders

The tax credit monetization is strategic: ETR converts non-cash tax benefits into cash flow, reducing external financing needs. This isn't a one-time event—the Inflation Reduction Act provides a 10-year runway for continued tax credit generation from nuclear and solar assets.

Management Tone Analysis: What the Qualitative Data Reveals

Our 5-pass filing analysis extracts management tone from forward guidance sections. The differences are revealing:

Company	Tone Assessment	Key Signal
ETR	Cautious-constructive	Emphasizes regulatory strategy, specific milestones
AEP	Confident-promotional	Emphasizes scale, liquidity adequacy
SO	Recovery-focused	Post-Vogtle normalization (limited Q3 disclosure)

ETR's cautious tone aligns with disciplined capital allocation. When management is conservative in describing a smaller, well-defined capex program, expectations are easier to meet. When management projects liquidity confidence but acknowledges demand uncertainty, the bar for disappointing investors is set differently.

---

The Counter-Intuitive Finding: Smallest Plan, Best Position

Why Scale Can Be a Liability

Conventional wisdom: Bigger capex → More growth → Higher valuations

Reality check: Bigger capex → More external financing → More execution risk → Greater sensitivity to cost overruns

The ETR advantage:

1. Lower absolute financing needs — Less dilution, lower interest expense
2. Higher accountability — Named projects can be tracked
3. Regulatory diversification — Multiple smaller projects across states vs. mega-project concentration
4. Management credibility — Conservative tone on achievable scope

SO's Post-Vogtle Context

Southern Company deserves special mention. Its $12.3B investing outflows include the final stages of Vogtle Units 3 & 4—the only new nuclear plants built in the US in decades. Vogtle was a cautionary tale:

• Original budget: ~$14B
• Final cost: ~$35B
• Timeline: 7+ years of delays

Now that Vogtle is operational, SO's cash flow profile should improve. The company is transitioning from mega-project construction to maintenance capex. Watch for OCF coverage to improve over the next 2-4 quarters as construction cash outflows normalize.

AEP's Scale Challenge

AEP's $72B capex plan is the largest among peers. The strategic logic is sound: data center demand is surging, transmission investment earns favorable regulatory returns, and load growth in the Midwest/South is real.

But execution at this scale is difficult:

• Multi-state regulatory complexity (11 states, each with different commissions)
• $674M ARO increase disclosed in Q3 2025 (environmental liabilities rising)
• Supply chain concentration risk for equipment (transformers, turbines)
• Interest rate sensitivity on $17B+ cumulative external financing

For AEP investors: The question isn't whether the growth opportunity is real—it is. The question is whether AEP can execute $14B+ annual capex without cost overruns or regulatory disallowance. The 0.67x coverage ratio means less margin for error.

---

Investment Framework: How to Use This Analysis

For Yield-Focused Investors

All three utilities pay competitive dividends. But capex-heavy utilities can face dividend pressure if:

• Rate cases are denied (earnings shortfall)
• Interest costs rise (margin compression)
• Equity issuances dilute per-share metrics

ETR's positioning: Lower capex needs mean less pressure to issue equity, supporting per-share dividend growth.

For Growth-Focused Investors

Capex drives rate base growth, which drives earnings growth. Larger capex programs should theoretically deliver higher growth.

But consider the quality-adjusted view:

• ETR's $7.6B plan may deliver growth at lower risk
• AEP's $72B plan may deliver higher growth at higher execution risk
• SO's post-Vogtle normalization may deliver improving returns on existing assets

For Risk-Adjusted Returns

Factor	ETR	AEP	SO
Capex execution risk	Low	High	Moderate (improving)
Regulatory risk	Moderate	High (11 states)	Moderate
Interest rate sensitivity	Lower	Higher	Moderate
Disclosure quality	Best	Adequate	Adequate
Management credibility	Cautious	Promotional	Recovery-focused

Implication: ETR may offer superior risk-adjusted returns for investors who value execution discipline over scale optionality.

Watch Items: What Could Go Wrong

For ETR investors—honest counterpoint: ETR's working capital metrics are deteriorating (per Q3 2025 filing):

• Receivables increasing without full explanation
• Fuel inventory rising
• Accounts payable decreasing (faster supplier payments)

This doesn't negate the coverage advantage, but watch for working capital to become a cash drag in future quarters. If receivables continue climbing, ETR's OCF could compress even if earnings grow.

For AEP investors: The "slower than anticipated load ramps among certain large commercial customers" disclosure is worth monitoring. Data center contracts are signed years before power delivery. If ramp delays persist, AEP's demand-side case weakens.

For SO investors: Post-Vogtle cash flow normalization is expected but not yet visible in Q3 data. The improvement thesis depends on construction wind-down that may take 2-4 more quarters to fully materialize.

---

Methodology: How We Calculate These Metrics

Data Sources

All metrics calculated from SEC 10-Q filings via MetricDuck's XBRL extraction pipeline:

• Operating Cash Flow: NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
• Investing Cash Flow: NetCashProvidedByUsedInInvestingActivities
• Capital Expenditures: PaymentsToAcquirePropertyPlantAndEquipment

The AEP Data Nuance

AEP changed its XBRL reporting in FY2024, now reporting capex at the segment level rather than consolidated. This creates a data gap where the consolidated capex line item appears incomplete.

Our workaround: Use NetCashProvidedByUsedInInvestingActivities (investing cash outflows) as a proxy. This captures:

• Property, plant & equipment purchases
• Acquisitions
• Other investing outflows

For Q3 2025, AEP's quarterly investing outflows sum to approximately $10.3B annualized, consistent with management's disclosed $11.9B annual capex guidance.

Coverage Ratio Calculation

OCF Coverage Ratio = Operating Cash Flow (TTM) / Investing Outflows (TTM)

Higher is better. A ratio of 1.0x means capex is fully self-funded.

---

What to Watch Next

Q4 2025 and FY2025 10-K Filings (March 2026)

Full-year filings will provide:

• Complete annual cash flow statements
• Updated capex guidance for 2026-2030
• Rate case outcomes and regulatory commentary
• Potential capex plan revisions based on interest rate environment

Key Questions for Follow-Up

1. Will ETR's coverage ratio improve? If OCF grows faster than capex, the gap narrows
2. Will AEP revise its $72B plan? Higher-for-longer rates may force prioritization
3. Will SO's post-Vogtle cash flow normalize? Construction outflows should decline
4. Will any utility announce data center contracts? Contracted load de-risks capex recovery

---

Disclaimer

Not Investment Advice: This analysis is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold Entergy (ETR), American Electric Power (AEP), Southern Company (SO), or any other security.

Data Limitations: Analysis relies on Q3 2025 10-Q filings. Full-year 10-K filings (March 2026) will provide updated financials and guidance. Metrics are historical and do not predict future performance.

Methodology Transparency: All quantitative claims derived from SEC filings using disclosed formulas. Investors can replicate calculations using EDGAR data.

---

Explore More

This analysis is part of our Earnings Quality Analysis framework.

Related Analyses:

• AEP Dividend Accelerating to 7.1%: Payout Safety Analysis — Deep dive on AEP's dividend trajectory
• Cash Flow Quality Analysis Framework — The methodology behind coverage ratio analysis
• How to Track AI Capex Efficiency — Understanding capex productivity across sectors

Company Deep Dives:

• View ETR Company Profile & Filing Intelligence
• View AEP Company Profile
• View SO Company Profile

---

This analysis will be updated after Q4 2025 10-K filings (expected March 2026) to include full-year data and updated capex guidance.