Crowds packed three separate meeting rooms at West Kentucky Community & Technical College in Paducah Wednesday for the Public Service Commission’s hearing on nuclear power generation, part of a series of meetings taking place across the state this spring. Several people used the opportunity to publicly criticize a pair of nuclear projects underway in the area.
PSC Chair Angie Hatton said that the meeting in far western Kentucky was the most well-attended of the utility regulating agency’s community events on the topic so far. Hatton and a PSC attorney gave short presentations detailing the utility regulating agency’s role in the state’s power systems and the goal of the meetings – to get Kentuckians’ opinions on nuclear power generation.
Kenya Stump, the executive director of the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet’s Office of Energy Policy, also walked attendees through the modern science of nuclear energy and some of its potential benefits and risks.
Following the presentations, which many attendees had to watch virtually from overflow rooms, more than 20 people offered public comment.
Many of those speakers expressed concerns about potential developments at the former Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant site, which served in a national defense capacity for about a decade before transitioning to the commercial production of fuel-grade uranium for use in nuclear power plants in the mid-1960s. It ceased operations in 2013, and cleanup operations at the site are being overseen by the U.S. Department of Energy.
The former PGDP site is a key resource for two major nuclear projects announced in recent years in far western Kentucky. General Matter, a company backed by Trump ally Peter Thiel, leased land last year to build a uranium enrichment facility on the DOE site. Global Laser Enrichment plans to build just across the fenceline, using technology that’s never been deployed commercially to re-enrich depleted uranium tails that have sat dormant on-site for years.
While Hatton said the goal of the hearings PSC is conducting is to gauge Kentuckians’ thoughts on the future potential for nuclear energy in the state, many speakers focused on the two billion dollar-plus projects that are already in the works in McCracken County.
Several decried what they viewed as a lack of transparency by local and federal government officials and expressed doubts about whether the private companies involved with the announced Paducah projects would work to safeguard the interests of community members.
“I don't have a lot of faith in corporations that they're going to do what's best for the people,” said Stefanie Graves. “In fact, I think there's a lot of evidence out there to the contrary, that their interest is in their shareholders and their bottom line.”
“I have sat in a lot of meetings over the years, and I have some knowledge of the site, and I would say the public information campaign about [the Paducah nuclear projects] has not been very good,” said Mark Donham, who chaired the DOE’s Paducah Citizen’s Advisory Board for six years. “I’ve heard everything from, 'Well, there’s going to be a power plant, a data center, an enrichment plant, they’re gonna use the nickel, they’re gonna reprocess the tails.' There’s just a lot of questions.”
“Nobody knows what is going on here. So that's a big issue,” said Erica Moore. “We are against accepting risk – all the risk – while a private corporation takes all the profit… It's our community, and it should be our decision.”
Many weighed in on environmental concerns surrounding nuclear developments and questioned whether the developments currently in progress will learn from the mistakes of the past, which had significant health impacts on former PGDP workers and many in the surrounding communities. In 2009, the federal government paid over $500 million to thousands of current and former PGDP workers, and in some cases their survivors, to compensate them for illnesses the employees developed as a result of working with or around hazardous materials on-site.
“The Department of Energy promises high health and safety precautions taken and high economic opportunities, and they always fall short,” said Joshua Massey.
“I've heard almost no comments about how things will be different this time around,” said Reid Draper. “A great deal of the issue was we had DOE, then Union Carbide, I believe, then Lockheed Martin and, finally, USEC. Now, those handovers on each generation seemed to degrade in terms of how things were controlled and processed, which led to storage facilities that were substandard. How is that going to be different this time?”
Bonnie Koblitz criticized the categorical exclusion announced by the DOE in February, which would allow advanced nuclear reactor projects to bypass extensive environmental review processes.
“Categorically excluding from environmental regulations when working with such dangerous substances. Why would you want to exclude this work from the most stringent regulations and monitoring?” she said.
Others, like Harmony Perilloux, wondered whether the technology that would go into those proposed facilities – like the first-of-its-kind laser uranium enrichment facility that GLE has been developing for more than a decade – has been properly proven.
“How can we know that it is safe if there are no facilities operating currently that are exactly like it?” she said. “If it is safe, how do we know it will be safe on the scale that it will be done in Paducah?”
Some threw their support behind the proposed projects, saying the pair of fuel cycle developments are just the next chapter in Paducah’s history with the nuclear industry.
Anyone wishing to submit written comments regarding issues related to nuclear energy in Kentucky, as outlined by the PSC, can do so by emailing psc.comment@ky.gov. All emails should reference Case No. 2025-00186.
Tom Barron, a former contamination control manager at the Paducah DOE site, said he believes nuclear regulations and technology are safer than they’ve ever been – despite steps taken by the Trump administration in recent years to reform the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
“Believe me, I don't want dirty water. I don't want to breathe radioactive products or any other kind of product,” he said. “But we do have the capabilities to have safe operations in this industry.”
Ronnie Cavanah focused on the industry’s potential to be an economic driver for the region. Combined, the planned General Matter and Global Laser Enrichment facilities are expected to represent more than $3.2 billion in local investments.
“I look forward to having that industry here to keep our young men and women, our young kids that are graduating [and] looking for a future, keeping them here in our communities,” he said. “All the jobs that's going to be created off this, the businesses and everything, this community is going to grow and strive for years to come.”
Ralph Young, also a former chair of the Department of Energy’s Citizens Advisory Board for the Paducah site, said he thinks the corporate interests behind the projects are in it for the long haul.
“Paducah and the surrounding community area have dealt with nuclear facilities for over 75 years,” he said. “We trust that those companies investing in our community will create safe facilities that will overcome the catastrophic risk of earthquakes, natural disasters and even the risks that we don't know about today.”
McCracken County Judge-Executive Craig Clymer was the lone local official to make public comment, but used his time at the podium to address attendees instead of making comment for the PSC. He tried to assuage concerns about potential “shenanigans and corruption” in government when it comes to the projects and said that he welcomed anyone with questions about the planned nuclear developments to get in touch with him.
“All I can do is tell you, if you’ve got concerns, I'm gonna do my very best to address them,” Clymer said. “I think all the other officials here will as well, and we'll get you the answers the best we can.”
Anyone wishing to submit written comments regarding issues related to nuclear energy in Kentucky, as outlined by the PSC, can do so by emailing psc.comment@ky.gov. All emails should reference Case No. 2025-00186.
