On April 2, 2026, Madison Circuit Court Judge Kristin Clouse ruled against East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC), rejecting its attempt to acquire part of the college’s forest for a high-voltage electricity transmission project. The ruling was first reported by WKYT and further detailed by public radio station WEKU and local publication The Kentucky Edge. A long-running dispute over the future of a historic Kentucky forest has ended in a significant victory for Berea College, at least at the trial court level. The case centred on the proposed Big Hill transmission line, a project intended to improve electricity supply in southeastern Madison County. EKPC wanted to secure land through eminent domain, a legal process that allows certain authorities and utilities to acquire private property for public use, even when the owner does not agree to sell.
The proposed route would have crossed more than 1.5 miles of Berea College Forest, bringing power infrastructure close to prominent natural landmarks, including East Pinnacle and Eagles’ Nest, as well as the college’s telescope observatory. Berea College Forest covers approximately 9,000 acres across Madison and neighbouring counties. It is more than a protected green space. The college manages the land for forestry education, academic research, wildlife conservation, recreation and watershed protection.
EKPC relied on a computer-based planning system known as EPRI-KY, which evaluates potential transmission routes using engineering, geographical and environmental factors, according to the 14-page judgment. Because it contributes to the public water supply for Berea and parts of neighbouring counties, the Owsley Fork Reservoir watershed is particularly important. The court’s decision focused largely on how the utility selected its proposed route. However, the judge found that the company had not adequately examined the specific characteristics and existing uses of the college’s property before settling on its preferred route. The ruling also raised concerns about the lack of meaningful consultation with the college and the wider community during the planning process. By the time affected landowners were approached, the utility had already identified its preferred locations and routes. The court found that the company had failed to properly assess whether its decision would cause avoidable and disproportionate damage to the forest. The proposed infrastructure also raised concerns beyond the loss of trees. The route could affect views around the college’s Windswept property, interfere with the setting of its dark-sky observatory and create environmental concerns for the surrounding watershed. Importantly, the college’s opposition was not based on rejecting the need for improved electricity infrastructure altogether. Its argument centred on the location of the proposed line and whether the utility had adequately considered alternative routes and the consequences for the forest. For Berea College, however, the April ruling marked an important moment in its efforts to protect a landscape that has served generations of students, researchers and the surrounding community. You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.
It also brought attention to a broader question: how infrastructure projects can balance the need for reliable electricity with the responsibility to protect historically and environmentally significant land.