UPDATED MARCH 4, 2026
The Kentucky Public Service Commission (PSC) is going on the road asking for community feedback on the future of nuclear energy across the state. On February 26 at 5:00 pm, the PSC was in Morehead to hold the first of six public comment meetings. This is a major opportunity for residents, business owners, and local officials in Eastern Kentucky to have their voices heard as the state considers its energy options.
The PSC is investigating nuclear energy in response to a 2024 legislative directive in Senate Joint Resolution 140 (SJR 140). This resolution requires the Commission to prepare its staffing, organization, and regulations to be ready to oversee the siting and construction of nuclear facilities in Kentucky.
Beyond this legislative action, the PSC is responding to broader shifts in the national energy landscape. As PSC Chair Angie Hatton has explained, “Recent technological advances have made nuclear energy potentially more affordable and attainable. However, the technology is still very expensive, and we want to make sure we examine all angles of this potential power source, including its impact on ratepayers, electric grid reliability, our environment, economic development and our workforce in Kentucky as we explore our options.”
While the PSC is tasked with exploring nuclear generation, many advocates urge caution regarding the path forward. A key concern is the rush toward Small Modular Reactors (SMRs*), which critics argue are a diversion from existing, reliable solutions.
“SMR nuclear power is unproven, expensive, and decades away from deployment at scale,” explains Carrie Ray, Director of Energy Programs at Mountain Association. “It is a distraction from the real, affordable clean energy solutions that are available right now to benefit ratepayers and the climate.”
Additionally, on March 2, 2026, the Kentucky Senate passed SB 57, which would subsidize high-risk nuclear development through public funds and ratepayer-backed cost recovery. This would allow PSC-regulated utilities to recover costs for nuclear site permits and operating licenses from its ratepayers without following longstanding procedures regarding the utility to demonstrate need and least-cost planning. It would also subsidize nuclear development with public funds in addition to what is coming from ratepayers.
Despite growing legislative interest, nuclear energy remains an expensive and slow-moving solution. Major U.S. projects can cost $10 billion to $20 billion and there is no evidence that SMRs would be cheaper since none have been built at scale. Along with the financial risk, a new nuclear project in the U.S. has a 10 to 15-year timeline from planning to operation, meaning it cannot address immediate energy affordability needs. Utility-scale solar projects typically take 2 to 5 years to develop from initial planning to commercial operation, and recent project costs are a fraction of nuclear.
Investing just a fraction of these nuclear‑scale dollars into existing energy‑efficiency and conservation programs would deliver immediate savings for ratepayers, and in many cases eliminate the need for new power plants entirely.
With billions of dollars and decades of ratepayer impact on the line, the time to ask hard questions is now before we commit to unproven technologies that may never deliver on their promises. Your participation is vital to ensure the commission understands your community’s priorities. Morehead is the first of six public meetings being held in February, March and April. The other stops are Louisville, Lexington, Paducah, Highland Heights and Bowling Green.
Learn more about the meetings here.
*Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are advanced nuclear reactors that have a smaller physical footprint and lower power output than traditional reactors, with components designed to be factory-built and assembled on-site to theoretically reduce construction costs and time.
