Jacobs wins delivery role on AEP's seven-state transmission build

Overview

Updated 2 hours ago

American Electric Power selected Jacobs to manage delivery of the eastern half of a $37 billion transmission program, the companies said Oct. 29. Jacobs will handle project controls, engineering, siting, right-of-way acquisition and environmental review across seven states for five years. WSP USA holds the matching role across four western states.

The award is a management layer over a much larger build. AEP expects its transmission rate base to climb from about $37 billion this year to $69 billion by 2031, with 92% of its newly contracted load tied to data centers. Because most transmission spending is recovered through customer rates, the schedule Jacobs keeps will show up on household bills in Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia and Virginia.

Why it matters

Most of AEP's $37 billion transmission build is recovered through customer rates, so Jacobs' delivery schedule lands on seven states' electric bills.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

$37B

AEP's planned transmission investment over five years

Spans 11 states; Jacobs handles the seven-state eastern half, WSP the four-state west.

States in Jacobs' portfolio

Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia and Virginia.

$100B

AEP's capital plan for 2027 through 2031

Transmission is the largest slice, ahead of about $36 billion for generation.

92%

Share of AEP's contracted load tied to data centers

AEP expects 84 GW of incremental contracted load by 2031, crypto customers included.

$69B

Projected transmission rate base in 2031

Up from roughly $37 billion in 2026, according to the utility's investor presentation.

$5B

Cost of the Piketon, Ohio 765-kV project

Serves SB Energy's planned 10.4-GW data center campus on a former federal enrichment site.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

People Involved

Bob Pragada

Chair and chief executive of Jacobs

Leading the AEP delivery assignment

Bill Fehrman

Chairman, president and chief executive of American Electric Power

Running AEP's $100 billion capital program

Greg Hall

President of AEP Infrastructure

Leading AEP's new infrastructure business unit

Organizations Involved

American Electric Power

Investor-owned electric utility

Client; largest transmission system operator in the United States

Columbus, Ohio-based utility that owns roughly 90% of the nation's existing 765-kilovolt transmission lines.

Jacobs

Engineering and program-management contractor

Integrated delivery partner for AEP's eastern transmission portfolio

Dallas-based engineering firm hired to run delivery, controls and permitting for AEP's seven-state eastern transmission program.

WSP USA

Engineering and professional services firm

Delivery partner for AEP's four-state western portfolio

Holds the parallel AEP assignment covering Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, and disclosed fewer contract details.

PJM Interconnection LLC

Regional transmission organization

Must approve the Piketon 765-kV projects before construction

Grid operator whose approval, along with Ohio's siting board and federal regulators, gates AEP's largest single transmission project.

Timeline

March 2026 November 2026

6 events Latest: Today

Tap a bar to jump to that date

November 2026
AEP creates AEP Infrastructure business unit
Today Corporate structure

The unit combines competitive generation, infrastructure development and retail and wholesale energy, led by Greg Hall.
Today
October 2026
AEP picks Jacobs for east, WSP for west
Contract award

Jacobs takes integrated delivery across seven states for five years; WSP USA takes the four-state western portfolio.
5 days ago
AEP lifts five-year capital plan to $100 billion
Corporate strategy

The 2027-2031 plan puts about $37 billion into transmission. AEP also reported 15 GW of new load commitments signed in the third quarter.
6 days ago
Energy Department finalizes $1.6 billion loan guarantee for AEP
Federal action

The guarantee backs reconductoring and rebuilding 5,000 miles of high-voltage line across five states, part of a $3.56 billion program.
October 20th, 2026
September 2026
Ratepayers rally in Ironton, Ohio, over grid costs
Protest

Residents demonstrated against data-center-driven grid spending and the electricity rates that follow it.
September 2026
March 2026
Ohio regulators raise AEP Ohio transmission charges
Regulation

State regulators approved higher transmission charges, about $7.90 a month for a household using 1,000 kilowatt-hours.
March 2026

Scenarios

Piketon lines break ground in the first quarter of 2027

Likely Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: AEP management on its Oct. 28 earnings call and in its quarterly SEC filing

AEP says it has secured substantially all rights-of-way and finalized commercial agreements for the three 765-kV lines serving SB Energy's campus. Construction is expected to start in the first quarter of 2027, contingent on approvals from PJM, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Slippage in any of those dockets pushes the 2028, 2029 and 2030 in-service targets.

A regulator disallows part of the transmission spend from rates

Possible Resolves by End of 2027

Discussed by: The Ohio Consumers' Counsel and ratepayer groups in the seven states

About $28 billion of the $37 billion is regional-planning and reliability spending recovered through rates, rather than billed to a single large customer. Consumer advocates have already contested AEP Ohio transmission charges. A commission that rules part of the investment imprudent would move that cost onto shareholders and reset the economics of the delivery contracts Jacobs and WSP are staffing up for.

AEP trims the capital plan as data-center demand slips

Possible Resolves by End of 2027

Discussed by: AEP's own filings, which flag that projected data-center demand may not materialize as expected

AEP signed 15 GW of new load commitments in a single quarter and expects 84 GW of incremental contracted load by 2031. That pipeline is the justification for nearly doubling the transmission rate base. A slower signing pace, a customer default, or a delay at a single large campus would give regulators and investors a reason to ask AEP to stretch the schedule rather than build ahead of demand.

Historical Context

2 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

Late 1960s

AEP and the first 765-kilovolt lines (late 1960s)

AEP energized the first 765-kilovolt transmission in the United States, a voltage class that moves far more power per line than the 345-kilovolt circuits it replaced. The company built those lines across the Ohio Valley and has kept the lead: it now owns about 90% of the nation's existing 765-kV mileage.

Then

The extra-high-voltage backbone let AEP move power between its own generating stations and neighboring systems at a scale smaller utilities could not match.

Now

That network became the platform every subsequent AEP transmission expansion extends, and the reason a single utility can now plan a near-tripling of 765-kV mileage.

Why this matters now

The Piketon project is three more 765-kV lines on the same backbone, each adding roughly 3.2 GW of capacity.

2008-2014

Texas competitive renewable energy zones (2008-2014)

Texas regulators designated wind-rich areas of West Texas as competitive renewable energy zones, then approved a multibillion-dollar transmission build to carry that output toward Dallas, Austin and San Antonio. The lines were planned in advance of the generation, not after it.

Then

Wind developers built into a grid with room for them, and curtailment in the region fell.

Now

The build became the reference case for planning transmission around expected demand rather than waiting for congestion to prove the need.

Why this matters now

AEP's program runs the opposite way: the Piketon lines are sized for one customer's campus, with that customer paying, while most of the remaining spend waits on regional planning and state approvals.