What were elected officials in Lordstown thinking?

That is the question everyone should be asking about the repeated roadblocks officials have thrown up for a developer planning a $1 billion project here. The president of Clean Energy Future-Trumbull, LLC, told our publication he’s thought about walking away.

Now, we only hope that Mayor Arno Hill and Council President Ron Radtka’s new attempts to salvage the deal for a second natural gas-fired power plant are neither too little nor too late.

Much of the dispute hinges on water service. Clean Energy Future had struck a deal for Warren to provide enormous water volumes needed to operate the plant. The Mahoning Valley Sanitary District, a separate local source of bulk water, also approached Lordstown and the plant about providing the water.

The developer, however, said he would not risk losing investors while unnecessarily heading back to the table to renegotiate a water deal with another supplier. He said Lordstown officials have been very aware of his talks with Warren, ongoing since 2017, and even have been involved in some negotiations.

But Lordstown’s Board of Public Affairs, an elected body, seemed dissatisfied with that explanation and earlier this month refused to approve a motion allowing Warren to provide the water connection. A motion May 17 from BPA President Kevin Campbell on that matter failed because fellow board members Michael Sullivan and Chris Peterson refused to second it.

That failure threw the plant’s future into jeopardy and caused Clean Energy Future President Bill Siderewicz to declare work would halt without the Warren water connection.

The BPA inexplicably seemed willing to risk the entire project.

“He (Siderewicz) expressed many avenues that it’s not an option for him with what he has built and that it’s going to kill the project, and I guess only time will tell,” Campbell said after the May 17 meeting.

What were they thinking?

Then, in recent weeks, yet another potential Lordstown-imposed hurdle came to light.

A state regulatory agency, the Ohio Power Siting Board, is considering a request from Clean Energy Future for a one-year extension on a certificate required to start construction on the plant, due largely to global shutdown, supply chain and transportation issues triggered by the pandemic.

While the request received broad support from local economic development and public officials, Hill and Kellie Bordner, Lordstown planning and zoning administrator / economic development director, are on record “strenuously object(ing)” to the request. The two signed a March 29 letter of opposition sent to the Power Siting Board.

Bordner has not responded to our questions about the letter, but since we reported on that correspondence, Hill told our Business Editor Ron Selak Jr. that he really didn’t object to the requested time extension, and had given the letter only “a brief purview” before signing it.

What on earth were they thinking?

Since we’ve been reporting on all this, however, Hill and Radtka now seem to be working to change course.

First, the two recently sought a legal opinion from village attorney Paul Dutton on the Board of Public Affairs’ involvement in the project.

In response, Dutton determined the BPA has “no jurisdiction or authority” to negotiate contracts with utility service suppliers outside of Lordstown; that is council’s responsibility. Dutton directed the BPA to stand down on all communications with outside water supply vendors.

Good.

Now, we just hope village council acts more sensibly.

Then, last week Hill and Radtka wrote a letter to Mahoning Valley Sanitary District officials asking them to walk away from their proposal to provide the necessary enormous volume of water to the power plant. In that letter, Hill and Radtka advised that the two believe Lordstown “does not now need a redundant supply of water” to service the plant known as Trumbull Energy Center, or TEC, since terms on a water supply agreement already were negotiated with Warren.

“This unsolicited proposal from MVSD only serves to confuse matters and now threatens the TEC project.” the letter states. “Therefore, we request that MVSD rescind its proposal to avoid any further confusion and support the village’s efforts to accommodate the TEC project.”

To be clear, utility options should not be viewed in a negative light. However, they must be approached as just that — an option. They should provide beneficial choices for potential development, not unnegotiable demands.

Siderewicz told our business editor last week he plans to break ground in July.

That renews hope that this deal can be salvaged and that our Valley won’t lose the $1 billion investment. We sincerely hope everyone learns from the situation so future risks can be avoided.

editorial@vindy.com