SoftBank’s energy arm, SB Energy, plans to invest an eye-popping $33 billion in a 9.2 gigawatt natural gas-fired power plant project in the Midwest, part of a U.S.–Japan trade and investment package that proponents say could provide major new electricity capacity for American industry and technology infrastructure; if it comes to fruition near Portsmouth, Ohio (or the Ohio-Kentucky border), the facility would be among the largest gas plants in U.S. history and capable of powering millions of homes, though details on financing, construction timelines, environmental impacts, ownership and where the power will flow — to the grid or high-demand data centers — remain unclear and subject to debate.
Sources
https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/19/softbank-to-spend-an-eye-popping-33b-to-build-huge-u-s-gas-power-plant/
https://www.wosu.org/politics-government/2026-02-19/federal-government-says-33-billion-natural-gas-power-plant-planned-for-portsmouth-area
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/trump-announces-energy-critical-mineral-projects-texas-ohio-georgia-2026-02-17/
Key Takeaways
• SoftBank’s SB Energy is proposing a massive 9.2 GW natural gas power plant with a roughly $33 billion price tag as part of a larger U.S.–Japan investment deal.
• The project, touted by current federal officials, could be the largest gas-fired plant in the United States, but specifics on build timeline, financial responsibilities, and final location remain unresolved.
• Debate is building over the implications of the plant — from boosting grid and data center capacity to concerns about environmental impact and cost burdens for ratepayers.
In-Depth
In what has quickly become one of the most talked-about energy infrastructure proposals of early 2026, SoftBank’s U.S. energy subsidiary, SB Energy, is gearing up to pursue construction of a $33 billion, 9.2 gigawatt natural gas-fired power plant in the heartland of America. The project, announced in tandem with a broader U.S.–Japan economic engagement that includes up to $36 billion in Japanese investments across energy and industrial sectors, would represent an unprecedented expansion of fossil-fuel based electricity generation capacity in the United States if completed. Politically, it has been highlighted by federal officials as a sign of renewed international investment and industrial momentum, and its scale — potentially capable of powering millions of homes — has been noted repeatedly in press releases and coverage. The aggressive price tag and sheer generation capacity underscore how seriously some global investors and policy backers are treating long-term energy needs, especially as American digital infrastructure — including data centers — continues to put pressure on existing grid capacity.
What isn’t yet clear, and what will shape political and economic debate in the months ahead, are the finer points of this mega-project’s execution. Key questions remain as to who will ultimately bear the financial weight — traditional models in the utility sector often shift cost burdens to ratepayers — and whether the power plant’s output will flow into the wider grid or be largely dedicated to private computing facilities hungry for reliable electricity. Construction of a natural gas power plant of this size is not a quick undertaking; industry experts suggest that supply chain issues like turbine shortages alone could stretch timelines out for a decade or more. Meanwhile, public records and early commentary have offered only sparse details on permitting, environmental review, and economic incentives tied to the initial announcement, leaving room for additional political and community scrutiny. Still, proponents argue the plant’s scale could offer strategic energy autonomy and substantial capacity growth at a time when grid demand, particularly from tech sector growth corridors, has far outpaced historical expectations.
Environmental considerations also loom large, though they have been less central in initial reporting. A gas plant producing 9.2 GW of power would emit considerable carbon dioxide and raise regulatory questions around methane leakage and long-term climate impacts. Supporters of the project, including certain federal voices, emphasize energy security and investor confidence, especially given the Japanese financing tied to the broader deal. With negotiations continuing and significant details yet to be locked down, the proposal has quickly become a flashpoint for discussion among energy industry watchers, policymakers, and environmental advocates alike. What started as an announcement about capital deployment has evolved into a broader conversation about the future shape of American energy infrastructure and the balance between traditional generation sources and evolving grid reliability needs.