Do our Choices Depend on our Faith in Government?
This Summer has been an incredibly busy one for environmental advocates as they navigate the impacts of an administration that has largely reversed many significant environmental projects and regulations. On top of this, the weakness in the economy, as well as the clawing-back of federal grants, has created a hardship for many nonprofits who are doing this important work. We were very sorry to hear about the closing last month of the Kentucky Equal Justice Center as just one of these examples.
the “Solar for All” program was focused on rooftop solar for low-income housing and its funding is now being clawed back.
Another example is a project that KCC had been very involved in—the federal “Solar for All” grant program, where KCC and other nonprofits helped the state in being awarded over $62 million in grants to support rooftop solar for low-income and disadvantaged communities. Last week, the EPA under the Trump Administration announced that it was canceling the program. States are now fighting this clawback of funds, where the work was well underway. In Eastern Kentucky alone, the state had already identified more than 500 affordable housing units eligible for program funding, with many of these in flood-impacted areas. $27 million of the $62 million of the awarded funds for Kentucky were already approved to move forward but those funds are now being held back. The state now considers these funds “obligated.” It remains to be seen how this conflict will be resolved.
Nonprofit support was also an essential component of some of these federal grants. So we hope during this time you will consider doing what you can to support the nonprofits of your choice as they navigate a challenging financial landscape and an unstable environment.
(As a small respite from the chaos, we hope you will join us for an evening out at our 10th screening of the national Wild and Scenic Film Festival in Lexington on August 29th in support of KCC).
Our choices are getting more challenging:
Many environmental activists, because of our limited time and options to address climate change, see nuclear energy and large-scale solar as very two viable solutions. But there are other activists who are challenged by these options, whether that be the toxic impact of nuclear power or the land-use impact of large-scale solar.
The reality is that ALL energy-related projects have environmental impacts and we are kidding ourselves to say otherwise. For example electric cars in Kentucky still run largely on coal-based electricity. Their tires and batteries also have an impact. But they significantly reduce emissions and are kinder in many other ways compared to an internal combustion engine equivalent. We have choices on the paths we take even when they are imperfect. What particularly matters, however, is how well that impact is regulated, and how those who govern us choose to take the impacts seriously.
The Challenges for Nuclear Energy
There has recently been a renewed discussion about nuclear energy as an answer to the climate crisis. KCC held a webinar last month to update nuke activists from the 1970s and educate younger activists who had not lived in the shadow of the early nuke developments and cold-war threats.
As a personal experience, I grew up ten miles east of the Fernald Feed Materials Production Center in Ohio during the 1960s. Fernald was a key part of the U.S. nuclear weapons production cycle, producing high-purity uranium metal. The facility's operations resulted in significant contamination of soil and groundwater with uranium, thorium, and radium. A massive cleanup effort, one of the largest in U.S. history, was completed in 2006, restoring the 1,050-acre site to a natural state. But growing up in the region, I had no idea of what was contained on the site, which was located in a very rural area with farms and pastures. (I assumed the “feed production” center had to do with feeding the cattle nearby).
“Employees here couldn’t talk about the work they did.
There was a high level of secrecy around the site.”
—Former Fernald Employee
Later I would attend college about 30 miles north from Fernald on U.S. 27 in the 1980s. I only learned decades later about the massive cleanup and environmental impact of Fernald. Because of the renewed interest in nuclear energy this past year, I had been researching the history of the site in preparation for reporter inquiries when I ran across an article entitled “The Atomic Lab Next Door” in a paper by the University of Kansas that cited my old college town:
“When the uranium processed at Fernald was purified,
it was sent to a laboratory in nearby Oxford, Ohio, to be turned into fuel “slugs”
for nuclear reactors. This facility, called the Alba Craft Laboratory,
was owned and operated by Dr. Eugene Albaugh,
an aeronautics professor at Miami University….”
The article went on to state that the details of the work done there were kept hidden from the public until 1993. And that employees at the facility were kept in the dark about the work with no idea they were working with Uranium-238. The article also reported that five children who lived behind the facility ended up with thyroid cancer. It published the street address of the lab, and I was astounded to find that this was not some remote location but right in the central residential area of a college town where I lived only a block and a half away in the 1980s. I also learned that a nuclear rocket silo was also built farther north of Oxford that is now being used as the location of a seasonal “haunted house.”
Left to right: (1) The Fernald Nuclear Feed Materials facility. (2) A vacant lot next to a home on a quiet college town street that once was the Alba Craft Lab. (3 and 4) Photos of the Nike Nuclear Missile Base, now a “haunted house.”
While we certainly have many concerns about the history of this industry, and that the current debate is focusing more on economic development that could spike our energy use and less so on the obvious safety considerations, we will continue to engage in the debate and urge our lawmakers to put safety and environmental concerns first, with full transparency to the public, as we consider what our best solutions are for a rapidly warming planet. The challenge for the nuclear industry will be if they can win back the trust of those who experienced some of these historical impacts, and we must make sure that our lawmakers take that challenge seriously.
ACT: An informal conference on nuclear issues is scheduled on September 10, 2025, at 9 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time at the (PSC) Commission’s offices at 211 Sower Boulevard, Frankfort, Kentucky. The last day for intervention requests to be accepted is October 1, 2025. See more details in the order. (Case 2025-00186). Contact information for the PSC here.
The Challenges for Large-Scale Solar
On August 19th, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council will consider a zoning ordinance that will decide where and how solar energy systems can be used in Fayette County. The current draft would prohibit ground mounted solar arrays of any size, including backyard arrays and projects serving small farms, in all agricultural areas of the County.
Silicon Ranch is proposing to build the Fayette Agrivoltaics Project, a 70 MWac solar project on the east side of the county. Silicon Ranch specializes in integrating agriculture with solar energy production, using sheep to maintain the grounds under their solar arrays. The current zoning ordinance (known as the “solar ZOTA” or “Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment”) would block this project from proceeding.
Our colleagues at the Kentucky Solar Energy Society are supporting two amendments to the proposed ordinance that would allow the Fayette Agrivoltaics Project to move forward, with conditions requiring maintenance of vegetative cover on the site and the use of visual buffers. These amendments would also allow small and medium scale solar projects (up to 10 acres) in agricultural areas.
Fayette County, with its sprawling Thoroughbred farms and history of being the first county in the nation to limit growth through an “urban services boundary” to protect that farmland—means we at KCC are sensitive to that history. The developer, Silicon Ranch, tends to purchase the land where they build solar projects to make long-term commitments to using regenerative agriculture under and around their solar arrays. Their Turkey Creek Solar Ranch in Garrard County is an example of an existing “agrivoltaics” project where solar and agriculture are are combined in the design. That is the kind of “best practices” we have encouraged in our Citizens Solar Guide. But we know that we have KCC members on various sides of this issue, so we are sharing this information for you to address as you wish, but encourage you to weigh in if you are a Fayette County resident and engage your council members to consider responsible solar projects that are well designed, respect the land, and also advance their climate goals.
ACT: Ways to be involved for Fayette County Residents:
Speak up at the Council meeting August 19th, 3:00pm at City Hall – Event sign up
Contact Council Members: Click here to send a message if you support this project: Advocacy Form
Submit Comments via ENGAGE LEXINGTON