Hanging Rock Baku transmission line remains in route study stage
AEP’s proposed 765 kV connection between Hanging Rock in Lawrence County and Baku in Pike County is still in the route study and public-feedback stage. The company’s published materials describe a concept, not a final route, and the map released for public review shows alternative study segments rather than a selected alignment.
The proposal matters across southern Ohio because it could add, rebuild, or relocate high-voltage transmission facilities across parts of Lawrence, Scioto, and Pike counties. For landowners, local governments, utilities, developers, and businesses tracking infrastructure risk, the key point is simple: the project is active, but parcel-level conclusions remain premature.
AEP lists an October 9 feedback date for the current study stage and identifies a later filing under case `26-0870-EL-BTX`. The company’s fact sheet targets a spring 2027 application and a late 2029 in-service date, both subject to the siting process.
AEP’s published concept shows new, rebuilt, and relocated transmission work
AEP describes the Hanging Rock to Baku proposal as another planned 765 kV transmission connection in southern Ohio. According to the project materials, the published concept includes three main categories of work:
Project element | Approximate length | What it means at this stage |
New 765 kV line | About 33 miles | A new high-voltage transmission corridor is under study. |
Rebuilt existing 765 kV line | About 7 miles | Existing infrastructure could be upgraded or replaced along an existing route. |
Relocated and rebuilt line | About 3 miles | A segment could shift from its current location while being rebuilt. |
These figures come from AEP’s project description and fact sheet. They help explain the likely scale of the project, but they do not identify a final path across individual properties.
The distinction is important. A project can be well defined in terms of purpose and general endpoints while still being unsettled in route details. That appears to be the status here. AEP has named Hanging Rock in Lawrence County and Baku in Pike County as endpoints, but the route between them remains under review.
The company’s concept map shows alternative study segments. That means the map should be read as a planning document, not as a construction map. Some segments may advance, others may change, and some may drop out before an application is filed.
For public agencies and businesses, the project is worth tracking now because the study stage can shape later decisions. For landowners, the more cautious reading is better: a study segment near a property does not mean the property is selected for a line.
The final route has not been determined
AEP’s concept map explicitly says that a final route has not been determined. That statement should guide how the project is discussed and mapped.
At this stage, the Hanging Rock Baku transmission line is best understood as a proposed connection moving through route study, public input, and eventual regulatory filing. It is not yet a final approved route.
That status affects several common questions.
A landowner may ask whether the project will cross a specific parcel. Based on the current public materials, the reliable answer is that no final route has been selected. A map segment may signal that an area is under study, but it does not settle the parcel question.
A business may ask whether a facility, planned site, or expansion area sits in the path of the project. The answer should stay provisional unless the site falls clearly outside all published study areas or later maps provide more detail.
A county, township, or village may ask whether it should plan for road, drainage, or land-use questions. The answer is yes, at a general level. Local officials can track potential corridor areas, collect public comments, and prepare to review later filings without treating the concept map as final.
The communities to watch are along the alternative corridors
The project’s endpoints place the proposal between Hanging Rock in Lawrence County and Baku in Pike County. The tags and route context also point to Scioto County as part of the corridor discussion. That makes communities in and near the alternative study segments the first places to watch.
The safest way to describe the geography is at the community and county level:
Lawrence County
Hanging Rock is the southern endpoint identified in the project name and materials. Nearby areas in Lawrence County should watch for route refinements, especially where study segments connect to existing high-voltage infrastructure.
Scioto County
Scioto County appears in the project context and is likely central to the corridor conversation between Lawrence and Pike counties. Communities near the mapped study segments should track future AEP updates and regulatory filings.
Pike County
Baku is the northern endpoint named by AEP, with project materials also connected to the Piketon area through the published document names. Pike County communities near Baku and the surrounding study segments should watch later maps closely.
This level of detail is useful for early planning. It allows local governments and businesses to flag possible exposure without overstating what the public materials prove.
The same approach applies to real estate, site selection, and local infrastructure planning. A parcel inside or near a study segment deserves attention, but it should not be described as affected by the final route unless later materials support that conclusion.
For example, a broad due diligence note might say:
AEP has published alternative study segments for the proposed Hanging Rock to Baku 765 kV line. The site appears to be near a study area, but AEP says no final route has been determined.
That statement is more accurate than a hard claim that the transmission line will cross a property.
The public feedback date comes before the planned filing
AEP lists an October 9 feedback date for the route study stage. Public feedback during this period can cover practical route issues that may not be obvious from a map alone.
Those issues can include:
Existing homes, farms, schools, cemeteries, and community facilities
Areas with steep terrain, drainage issues, or access concerns
Existing utility corridors and transportation routes
Planned development sites or local infrastructure projects
Environmental, cultural, or historic resources known to the community
Public comments do not guarantee a specific routing outcome. They can still influence what the company studies, what it avoids, and what it explains in later filings.
AEP’s fact sheet targets a spring 2027 filing. The project materials identify a later application under case `26-0870-EL-BTX`. In Ohio, major electric transmission projects typically move through a formal siting review before approval. That later process is where more detailed route information, project need, impacts, and public participation steps are expected to become clearer.
The fact sheet also targets a late 2029 in-service date. That timing is subject to the siting process, which means it can change depending on review, approvals, construction requirements, and other project conditions.
For now, the practical sequence is:
Stage | Status based on AEP materials |
Route study and public feedback | Current stage |
Feedback date | October 9 |
Planned application | Spring 2027 |
Case reference | `26-0870-EL-BTX` |
Target in-service date | Late 2029 |
Final route | Not yet determined |
Why the difference between study segments and a preferred route matters
The phrase “alternative study segments” can sound technical, but it has real consequences.
A study segment is part of a possible route network. It shows where a company is considering options. A preferred route, once announced, generally narrows the proposal to the alignment the utility plans to advance. A final approved route comes later, after regulatory review.
Those stages should not be treated as interchangeable.
For local reporting, the safest phrasing is that AEP is studying alternative corridors between Hanging Rock and Baku. For business planning, the safest action is to track the study segments while waiting for the preferred route and application maps. For landowners, the safest assumption is that the situation remains open unless AEP or a formal filing provides more specific notice.
The risk of overstating the current map is not just technical. It can affect property discussions, development decisions, and public concern. A route study map can cause a property owner to worry that a line is certain, when the route may later shift. It can also cause a business to ignore a potential constraint because the project is not final, even though the area remains under review.
A balanced reading avoids both mistakes.
What businesses and local planners should track now
The business connection is strongest at the corridor level. The current materials can help identify communities and general areas that may need closer review, but they should not be used as the only basis for parcel-level decisions.
For site selectors, developers, utilities, and public-sector planners, the best next steps are practical:
Compare planned projects with AEP’s published study-segment concept map.
Flag sites near alternative corridors for further review.
Track AEP’s preferred route announcement, if one is published before filing.
Watch for the spring 2027 application under case `26-0870-EL-BTX`.
Review later maps for changes in route detail and corridor width.
Keep dated copies of the public materials used for any analysis.
That last point matters. Transmission route documents can change as projects move from concept to application. A dated record helps explain what information was available when a decision was made.
Businesses should also avoid treating the October 9 feedback date as the last chance to monitor the project. It is a key date in the current public-feedback period, but the later siting process should offer more formal project records and additional details.
The sources to use for current review
The most relevant current sources are AEP’s own project materials:
Those sources should be read together. The project page gives the broad description. The concept map shows the alternative study segments. The fact sheet provides the approximate project components, target filing period, and target in-service timing.
The concept map is especially important because it carries the warning that a final route has not been determined. Any summary of the project should include that limitation.
What to watch next
The biggest near-term item is the end of the public-feedback window listed by AEP for October 9. After that, the next questions are whether AEP identifies a preferred route, when it files the application, and how the filed maps compare with the current study-segment concept map.
The spring 2027 filing target is the next major milestone in the published schedule. When that filing appears, it should provide a clearer record for landowners, local governments, and businesses. The case number to watch is `26-0870-EL-BTX`.
Until then, the careful takeaway is this: AEP has proposed a 765 kV connection from Hanging Rock to Baku, with about 33 miles of new line, seven miles of rebuilt existing 765 kV line, and three miles of relocated and rebuilt line. The project remains in study and public feedback. The route is not final, and any parcel-level conclusion should be treated as provisional until later maps and filings say more.
Comments