LORDSTOWN — There are “no reasonable grounds” to investigate allegations made by Lordstown officials over the construction of the $1.2 billion Trumbull Energy Center power plant, a state regulatory agency decided.

In doing so, the Ohio Power Siting Board on Thursday dismissed the village’s complaint with prejudice, meaning the decision is final and the complaint cannot be brought again.

“I think the facts are rather uncontested in terms of the zoning and the zoning issues are largely outside of our jurisdiction, but they have also been certificated for the past six years at this point. When that case was certificated, it was a completely uncontested case at the time with local support,” Nick Walstra, administrative law judge with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, said.

The village in July asked the state to suspend a certificate granted in October 2017 that allows the plant’s owners — Mars, Pennsylvania-based Trumbull Asset Management — to build, operate and maintain the facility. The village also sought an order to require the facility to comply with Lordstown’s site plan review and zoning permit processes.

At the heart of the complaint, it states, was siting board approval was based on the project site being zoned industrial when much of the site is zoned residential.

The center, however, claimed the validity of the certificate is not dependent on the village’s local zoning and the application “adequately described” the zoning designations of the property, including a 34-acre parcel that is zoned residential.

Walstra said, “In terms of zoning, there is nothing specific in the certificate that pertains to zoning. Also, the facility itself would not be on any residentially zoned area,” so procedurally “I think that’s where we don’t see a violation of the certificate.”

The company filed a request with the village in February to rezone the site, but village council rejected the request in June after hearing concerns from residents.

An entry that accompanied the board’s ruling states it was persuaded by the energy center’s arguments that Lordstown was mistaken in that the certificate “is predicated upon an industrial zoning designation.”

The board also sided with the energy center’s argument that Lordstown “had every opportunity to raise its concerns” over project zoning, which has gone unchanged since the permit was granted six years ago.

OTHER ALLEGATIONS

The village also alleged a well was drilled to access the village’s water supply without approval of the village, Trumbull County Combined Health District, the Ohio Department of Health or the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

In response, lawyers for the energy center said the well is for nonpotable water for construction, and it was drilled “after being denied a ministerial request” for a water connection by the village. State permitting requirements were not applicable because the well is for nonpotable water only, the filing states.

In addition, the complaint alleged the center never provided detailed engineering drawings of the final design to the village, does not appear to have an environmental consultant on site, is violating a wetland buffer and is engaging in construction outside the hours listed in the certificate.

The center’s lawyers responded it had been submitting phased engineering drawings with the siting board; the site manager confirmed the center has an environmental consultant on site; and regarding construction during nonpermitted hours, the center conducted a continuous concrete pour beyond 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Aug. 8, but provided advanced notice to the public — a permit condition — and received no complaints regarding the work, the filing states.

CONCLUSION

“As Lordstown has been afforded ample opportunity to raise its concerns regarding the zoning designation of the project area, and TEC confirmed the complainant’s assertions have been addressed … the board finds that there is no cause to initiate a staff investigation,” the entry Thursday states.

The board determined allegations raised by Lordstown “do not constitute reasonable grounds to initiate a proceeding” under the state’s administrative rules.

OTHER MATTER

The board sided with the energy center’s request to construct two temporary laydown yards, or areas on a construction site used to store vehicles, tools and equipment when they are not in use.

Lordstown had objected, in part arguing the parcels are owned by third parties not subject to the siting board certificate and they needed to complete site plan review with and be permitted by the village.

Siting board staff earlier recommended the change for approval, plus five other design adjustments, but not without conditions.

The recommendation called for the energy center to continue to abide by all conditions already spelled out in the certificate, plus not allowing construction for the enlarged laydown yard to begin until the siting board received and reviewed a new water protection permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The board Thursday agreed.

Construction should be complete in November 2025, with the plant generating power in January 2026

rselak@tri.com