OSU, Sierra Club at odds on power plant

Ohio State University is seeking approval for a combined heat and power plant that it calls the “cornerstone” of its energy plan and private energy partnership.

The proposed facility would be the primary source of electricity and heating for Ohio State’s Columbus campus, according to the university’s application to the Ohio Power Siting Board. The plant is part of a $278 million project that would also include district heating and cooling loop infrastructure and a new pedestrian bridge across the Olentangy River, according to Ohio State.

The plant would fulfill several needs for campus power supply, Ohio State has said, including increasing energy resiliency, increasing energy reliability, establishing the university’s microgrid, reducing Ohio State’s carbon dioxide footprint, and reducing its energy costs.

But the Sierra Club and some students and residents have questioned the plan and pushed for cleaner energy alternatives. The Sierra Club formally intervened in the case in March, earning the right to participate as a party of record, receive all the case documents and participate in the case hearing. It also is allowed to file for a rehearing or appeal the board’s decision.

The parties appeared for a virtual hearing Tuesday and Wednesday before the power siting board. The sides will next submit briefs and replies in early and mid-august, and an administrative law judge then will submit a proposed decision to the board for approval.

The facility is planned for a corner of John H. Herrick Drive and Vernon L. Tharp Street near the Galbreath Equine Center. The plant would generate electricity with combustion turbines and then use exhaust heat to produce steam and to heat water, which would be used to heat campus buildings, Ohio State officials have said.

The combined heat and power plant is expected to reduce the university's carbon emissions by 35% in its first full year of operations, Ohio State spokesman Dan Hedman said.

It’s a critical piece of Ohio State’s energy plan after the university entered into a comprehensive energymanagement partnership in 2017. The 50-year deal earned OSU $1.1 billion upfront, plus a three-stage payment of $150 million to support academics. In return, Ohio State pays fees starting around $55 million per year to Ohio State Energy Partners, a private company made up of the French energy company

ENGIE and Canadian investment firm Axium Infrastructure.

The plant is also needed to support planned facilities such as a new inpatient hospital and buildings that will make up Ohio State’s West Campus innovation district, Hedman said.

But the Sierra Club has questioned whether the university thoroughly considered cleaner energy alternatives, including solar and wind generation and geothermal technology. The group also argues that the proposed plant would rely on natural gas extracted through fracking and conflicts with the goal of Columbus Mayor Andrew J. Ginther to pursue a community-choice energy-aggregation program to reach 100% green power by 2022.

“The plant will also be a major emitter of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and greenhouse gases,” the Sierra Club wrote when it petitioned to intervene in the case.

Ohio State has set a goal to have a net-zero carbon footprint by 2050, but reaching that goal “is currently costprohibitive due to a lack of affordable and scalable technology … capable of meeting the university’s critical energy needs,” a 2018 feasibility study said.

A combined heat and power plant “can provide a bridge to the future by balancing the trade-off of emissions reductions while achieving long-term economic returns and providing the campus with reliable energy,” the study said.

A number of residents, students and others argued against the plant during a public hearing last month and in written public comments submitted to the power siting board.

“Renewable energy sources are available: OSU can show leadership in taking actions to mitigate climate change, or it can act to intensify it by building plants like this,” OSU professor Jan Nespor wrote in a submitted public comment. “As an OSU professor, I urge you to reject this plan.”

“I do not believe that the addition of this power plant is in the interest of my fellow students and colleagues,” wrote Ohio State graduate student Evan Amber. “OSU should be a leader in the change to clean, sustainable energy that does not threaten local soils and water. OSU is a major scientific university that claims to strongly support environmental initiatives, an ideology supported by the majority of the student and professional body, and the university leadership should act to pursue these ideals and community expectations.” jsmola@dispatch.com @jennsmola