Ohio State’s Combined Heat and Power Plant is expected to begin operations in April 2026 with almost double the original budget. Credit: Daniel Bush | Campus Photo Editor
Originally set to be completed in late 2023, Ohio State’s Combined Heat and Power Plant is expected to begin operations in April 2026 with almost double the original budget.
The plant initially had $278 million in funding, per prior Lantern reporting. It now has a budget of $420.8 million, according to Dan Hedman, a university spokesperson.
Hedman in an email attributed delays and increased costs to “inflation, materials and design challenges, project management pressures, and the termination of the original contractor by ENGIE Buckeye Operations.”
ENGIE Buckeye Operations is the managing construction company and is responsible for 80 percent of any cost overruns, Hedman said.
The plant is expected to cut university carbon emissions.
“The plant is designed to provide energy-efficient electricity, heating and cooling for the campus core and the Innovation District,” Hedman said. “It will also include an 8,000-ton cooling system, with the potential to expand to 13,000 tons, and installation of heating hot water and chilled water infrastructure across the Midwest and West Campuses.”
According to the university’s website, the plant will support both existing and new campus buildings and is part of a district heating and cooling loop with a central chiller facility. Ohio State Energy Partners manages the project.
The plant was first proposed in 2019, when Ohio State Energy Partners submitted an application to the Ohio Power Siting Board for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need. The board approved the application in September 2020, according to the university’s website.
In a March 26, 2021 update, then-President Kristina Johnson expressed support for the plant’s construction and future use. At the time, the university estimated the project would cost $278 million, save $10 million annually and break even in about 12 years. It also projected a 30-35 percent decrease in carbon emissions, not including those released during natural gas extraction.
The plant is part of Ohio State’s larger climate action plan to reach carbon neutrality.
The university website states that the only feasible way to supply the plant with natural gas is through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves breaking up shale rock to release gas. Fracking carries risks, including water contamination and increased earthquakes, according to the CHP/Natural Gas Plant Ohio State website, where students and faculty are opposed to this construction.
Student groups including the Sierra Club Student Coalition, GradRoots, Undergraduate Student Government and the Society for Ecological Restoration have raised concerns about the plant according to the university website. Students have questioned “the focus on fossil fuels rather than renewable energy, the environmental and health impacts of fracking and the limited involvement of students and faculty in the planning process.”
Nina Gordon, a second-year in environment, economy, development and sustainability (EEDS), is in a club for students in the School of Environment and Natural Resources, said in an email she shares those concerns.
“On one hand, it will help the university reach its carbon emission reduction goals, but on the other, it perpetuates other environmental and ethical dilemmas, which makes me hesitant to fully support it,” Gordon said.
While the plant will help the university significantly reduce carbon emissions, Gordon said the location is very close to Howlett Greenhouses and Chadwick Arboretum, which he said could affect the plants inside.
Additionally, Gordon said the natural gases the plant uses require fracking, which he said is harmful to the earth and the communities near the extraction sites.
The plant is being built near the Howlett Greenhouses and Chadwick Arboretum, areas that have drawn criticism from students in agricultural and environmental programs. Student protests were held in October and November 2020 after concerns were “largely ignored in earlier stages of planning,” the website states.
Despite opposition, Hedman said the plant remains essential to campus infrastructure.
“This project is a key part of supporting the Innovation District and providing reliable, efficient energy for the campus,” Hedman said.
Gordon questioned whether the university’s approach goes far enough.
“Should reducing carbon emissions be all that matters? In trying to look good ‘on paper,’ the university risks overlooking the long-term impacts,” Gordon said.
