AEP Ohio — Baku-Gavin 765 kV Transmission Line (SB Energy/Piketon) OPSB Siting Review
Positioning Suggestions
→ AEP: the existing tradePlan already names 'SB Energy/Piketon wins Ohio Power Siting Board approval' as a bull/de-risking entry trigger — do not treat Sept 30, 2026 as the date that trigger can resolve. Company guidance points to an OPSB decision in early 2027; nothing filed or scheduled as of this report resolves before then. Size any pre-emptive move to the administrative signals in the monitoring checklist (filing confirmation, hearing notice, intervention activity), not to an expectation of a certificate outcome inside this window.
→ PWR: Baku-Gavin is one ~$1.1B award within Quanta's broader AEP transmission-construction relationship; treat docket progress as confirmatory of the existing core/critical supply relationship rather than a standalone position-sizing catalyst.
→ Watch the intervention record as the leading indicator for downstream timeline risk: Ohio 765-kV siting cases that draw organized landowner or environmental intervention typically add several months to a year versus an uncontested docket, which would push the 2029 in-service target and, by extension, the timeline embedded in AEP's 63 GW (now 69 GW per aep-data.ts) contracted-load conversion story.
Predictions
6OPSB will NOT hold a formal local public hearing on case 26-0426-EL-BTX before September 30, 2026
If OPSB does schedule and hold a hearing inside this window, treat it as evidence the docket is being fast-tracked given the project's DOE/Stargate profile — a modest incremental positive for the AEP transmission thesis, but still not a certificate decision.
AEP Ohio will confirm, via the OPSB docket, company IR, or press, that it has formally filed the Baku-Gavin Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need application by September 30, 2026
No organized opposition group will file a formal motion to intervene against the Baku-Gavin project by September 30, 2026
AEP will not revise the $1.1 billion cost estimate or the 2029 targeted in-service date for the Baku-Gavin line during this window
AEP or SB Energy will NOT announce a second customer-funded transmission project (e.g., in Texas) by September 30, 2026
This is the specific bull-case trigger named in AEP's own tradePlan.entry for a second >$2B customer-funded project — an announcement inside this window would be a genuine, differentiated positive independent of the Piketon docket itself.
The Ohio Supreme Court will not rule on the OMA data-center-tariff appeal (Case 2025-1458) before September 30, 2026
Key Questions
- Has AEP Ohio actually filed the Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need application for case 26-0426-EL-BTX, and on what date — confirmable via the OPSB docket or AEP's Ohio regulatory-filings page, neither of which showed a completed filing as of 2026-08-27?
- Has OPSB issued the public notice that opens the 30-day intervene window and sets a formal local public hearing date, and if so, when is that hearing scheduled?
- Have any parties — Gallia/Jackson/Pike County Farm Bureau chapters, individual landowners along the 50-mile corridor, Conserve Ohio, or other groups — filed motions to intervene, and are they supportive, neutral, or opposed?
- Does AEP or SB Energy reaffirm the $1.1B cost estimate and 2029 targeted in-service date on any investor-facing update in this window, or does either figure move?
- Does the separate Ohio Supreme Court case (2025-1458, the Ohio Manufacturers' Association appeal of AEP Ohio's data-center tariff) see any ruling, oral argument date, or briefing milestone that would color the political backdrop for large-load siting cases generally?
- Do AEP or SB Energy announce a second customer-funded transmission project (Texas is the bull case's named candidate) that the existing thesis treats as validating the Piketon financing template beyond a one-off?