This story was originally published by Canary Media.
The Trump administration says one of the world’s biggest natural gas-fired power plants will come to Ohio. But financial risks, permitting hurdles and uncertainties about the project’s access to equipment have critics doubting when—and if—the plant will come online.
The U.S. Department of Commerce unveiled the plan last month in a press release listing projects supported by the administration’s trade deal with Japan last year, in which the Asian country agreed to invest $550 billion in America. A fact sheet from the agency paints a broad-strokes picture of the project: The $33 billion, 9.2-gigawatt plant, it says, will be built somewhere around the southern Ohio city of Portsmouth by SB Energy, a subsidiary of Japanese tech giant SoftBank.
Several key details are missing from the administration’s announcement. Exactly where will the plant be built? Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son will be in Piketon, Ohio, about 25 miles north of Portsmouth, on Friday afternoon, so more particulars may be coming then.
Meanwhile, other questions remain: Where will SB Energy get equipment amid a supply chain backlog for gas turbines? How soon can the facility connect to the grid in a region where plants typically wait years for that approval?
These real-world constraints—and the fact that the announcement came as a complete surprise to state and local officials who would usually be involved in big energy decisions—have left some critics wondering about the project’s feasibility.
“I would doubt that that thing ever gets built, certainly at the size they’re talking about,” said Dennis Wamsted, an energy analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
Supply chain issues are among the biggest hurdles the project faces.
Turbines for gas plants are pretty much sold out in the U.S. through 2029 or 2030, Wamsted said. However, it’s possible that SB Energy could jump up in the line if it can pay other companies enough to delay their projects.
And SB Energy would have a hard time securing skilled labor to build the plant, Wamsted said, given the competition for a limited pool of workers already in high demand for data centers and other energy projects.
Then there’s the challenge of getting necessary permissions. Grid operator PJM Interconnection has to approve any projects added to the already backlogged grid; just this year, it is starting to review applications filed since 2022.
PJM spokesperson Jeff Shields said via email that the grid operator was not aware of the project prior to its announcement but is “excited about its prospects due to the need for new supply to meet burgeoning data center/large load demand growth.” The project could apply for interconnection in PJM’s next review cycle, which is accepting applications through April 27. But, he added, PJM has no specific information yet beyond the Department of Commerce announcement.
The plant would also need siting and construction permits from Ohio regulators. No applications for those approvals have been filed yet. Although a law passed last year speeds up the permit approval process to just a few months for priority projects, issuance is not guaranteed. Any appeal can add a year or more to the timeline.
On top of all that, SB Energy will need new pipelines and other infrastructure to get natural gas from where it’s extracted to wherever the facility is built. This likewise will require regulatory approvals from state and possibly federal authorities.
The flux in U.S. trade policy further complicates matters. Three days after the Trump administration announced the power plant, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the widespread tariff program that the U.S. government used to extract a variety of trade concessions from different countries—including Japan. The validity of the new tariffs has not been determined. And last week, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer launched investigations into allegedly unfair trade practices by Japan and other countries.
Rulings against the Trump administration might ultimately cause SoftBank and SB Energy to back out of deals with the U.S. government if the threat of higher tariffs is removed, particularly if their financial risks for the Ohio plant increase.
The Department of Commerce has not answered Canary Media’s repeated requests for more details about the power plant deal, nor have SB Energy and SoftBank responded to questions.
About the only thing that won’t be a hurdle for the proposed plant to procure is the amount of gas needed for at least the first decade of its operation—although a big jump in demand could increase the price of natural gas for everyone in the region.
“I would say a plant that large would probably use about 1.2 billion cubic feet per day,” said Jimmy Stewart, president of the Ohio Gas Association. On an annual basis, that would be roughly one-fifth of Ohio’s production, he said.
That’s a lot, but Ohio already exports much of its natural gas, Stewart noted. The state’s gas plants can also source fuel from elsewhere. And while the administration’s announcement last month was a surprise, “there’s been plenty of people assuming there would be more natural gas generation facilities announced over the next couple of years,” he said.
Risky Business
If the plant does ultimately come online, it would emit massive amounts of planet-warming greenhouse gases, along with other health-harming pollution.
Direct carbon dioxide emissions from the plant could range from 16.2 million metric tons per year to more than 20 million metric tons, according to separate estimates from the Rhodium Group and Energy Innovation, two policy and economic analysis organizations. That is roughly equivalent to the annual emissions of 4 million cars, based on federal data.
Fugitive methane emissions—the pollution that leaks during the production and transport of natural gas—could add about 26 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, Eric Gimon, a senior fellow at Energy Innovation, said via email.
Nitrogen oxide emissions could total between 300 and 2,000 tons per year, Gimon estimated. Exposure can irritate the lungs, eyes, nose and throat, and cause a variety of health problems.
In contrast, renewables and storage emit zero pollution during the operation phase of their life cycles. And they can get on the grid much more quickly, Wamsted noted.
A gas-fired megaplant also poses financial risks and could saddle Ohioans with higher electric bills in the years to come.
“If demand doesn’t materialize, you will be left with stranded assets intended to use expensive fuel.”
— Eric Gimon, a senior fellow at Energy Innovation
Although the current federal government and Ohio’s governor and legislature now favor natural gas, that could change. Renewed limits on greenhouse gas emissions could restrict the plant’s ability to operate, or require the plant to install costly equipment to capture and handle that waste.
Meanwhile, sky-high forecasts for electricity demand may not materialize if, for example, utilities’ load forecasts have been overstated and data center growth is less than projected. Other utility customers may foot the bill for overbuilding power plant infrastructure if hyperscalers require less energy than expected.
“If demand doesn’t materialize, you will be left with stranded assets intended to use expensive fuel,” Gimon said. Renewables and storage, on the contrary, don’t need matching fuel infrastructure. He added that it’s easier to repurpose those assets than a gas plant and pipelines; for example, solar panels and batteries could be relocated to another area where they are needed more.
The price volatility of natural gas is also a concern. Even before last month’s announcement, Ohio’s leadership was “betting heavily on natural gas for our future of generation,” said Andrew Thomas, executive-in-residence at Cleveland State University’s Energy Policy Center. “And you don’t want to see natural gas prices double if that is the bet we’re making.”
The cost of the plant’s construction, along with its required infrastructure, would factor into the price it charges for electricity for years to come. Given the Department of Commerce’s estimation of $33 billion for the investment, Wamsted said, “I can’t fathom how that would be cost-competitive” compared with other sources like renewables with batteries.
“A rush to gas is bad economic risk management,” Gimon said.
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
