As early as 1992 there have been multiple attempts from both business and certain WY legislators to make Wyoming the permanent storage site for spent nuclear fuel. Historically, consistently, adamantly and forcefully a large percentage of Wyomingites have asserted their opposition to this over the decades.
After President Trump published his four executive orders on May 23, 2025 and announced the “nuclear renaissance” he intended to push across the nation, nuclear business leaders and Economic Development (ED) entities from within and without the state, as well as WY executive, legislative agencies and many local governments became extremely busy.
The word was out to the nuclear industry that Wyoming officials had put out the Welcome Mat just for them. According to a SMR Site map put out by the NEA in Sept 2025, out of 34 small modular reactor (SMR) projects in North America, 11 had focused their sights on Wyoming.
One day it was quiet and the next day it felt like a feeding frenzy of sharks drawn to the scent of blood here in Wyoming. The feeling was palpable and it activated a growing number of citizens who quickly rearranged their work schedules to again attend local government and state legislative committee meetings where nuclear activities and companies were going to be considered.
Regardless if it was a company that wanted to manufacture reactors or nuclear fuel, or deploy nuclear reactors for energy, every citizen was already on their guard for the inevitable discussion to shift to the storage of spent nuclear fuel in Wyoming. After Radiant Industries moved their business focus from Gillette to Bar Nunn it finally came out that they intended to store spent nuclear fuel at their proposed facility.
The other shoe had dropped just as we expected. As one citizen expressed at the July 30, 2025 Minerals Committee meeting in Casper, ‘This feels just like the movie Groundhog Day – every time we wake up we again have to come to these meetings and tell you we don’t want spent nuclear fuel stored here!’
Despite Wyoming citizens being proven correct in their suspicions that their elected officials are going to try to sneak in the exact agenda we’ve been opposing for decades, we have been called “too stupid” (by Senator Bo Biteman), “uneducated” (by numerous town and city councils) and members of “Team No” (by Governor Gordon).
Insulting an educated citizenry was a very bad move on the part of our elected officials. Hoping to create a trusting and compliant citizenry, they instead amplified distrust and backlash towards all levels of government.
Citizen’s suspicions and distrust that have been validated will likely continue to increase until our elected officials reign themselves back to the representative Republican form of Government our country and state are founded on.
Equally important, it is going to continue to take an educated, proactive and committed citizenry to right this sinking ship.
Public Info Black-outs
Public suspicion and distrust has not just been over spent nuclear fuel storage however, it has also come from what appears to be intentional public info black-outs citizens sense are happening behind the scenes.
At this point in time every Wyomingite has experienced firsthand, or heard about, a WY government entity (local, county or state) endorsing and initiating some kind of nuclear and/or business economic development (ED) project without the public’s knowledge, input or approval. The secrecy required for this might not be a trend but rather the status quo with any potential nuclear project in Wyoming. Terra Power in Kemmerer and BWXT in Gillette are a few examples.
In June 2021 Terra Power’s intentions to build a nuclear demonstration plant (Natrium) in Wyoming was announced – citizens were never given an opportunity for public comments, were never asked their opinion or feedback, instead they were essentially told by Governor Gordon: Whether you want it or not this is going to happen.
“In May of 2023 BWXT applied for a partnership with the Wyoming Energy Authority” (Gillette News Daily, Nov 1, 2025). That was two years before Trump’s Executive orders, and ten months before the City of Gillette announced they had signed both a cooperative and non-disclosure agreement with BWX/BWXT.
Deals were made behind closed doors and the public had no idea until after agreements had already been signed.
When these deals are made there is almost always going to be an economic development component being heavily pushed for the subsequent municipal infrastructure that consultants insist are necessary – such as more housing, sewage improvements, industrial parks, logistic railroad spurs, new roads and highways, etc., etc., etc. It is an “if you build it they will come” mentality that accompanies almost every proposed nuclear project.
The rationale seems to be that if you’re going to build a nuclear facility you may as well just build a brand new city to go along with it. Even if the predicted amount of permanent jobs created is only 200. Nuclear projects seems to become an ED free-for-all with a list of Christmas wishes from all the sharks – both within and without the state.
Thus, public info black-outs are not just occurring with nuclear projects, but also with the municipal infrastructure expansions they are also planning.
The diagram below is a basic illustration of how a black-out on public info can play out in stages. As you can see there are at least three black-out opportunities that a government entity might employ to keep their constituents in the dark.
We are not saying all of these black-out efforts happen every time with every nuclear/ED project, but rather different strategies are likely used according to the dictates of the government officials and the ED entities involved in the planning process – what info they want revealed or hidden from the public while they get all their ducks in a row.
“If we can’t even have an open conversation about what’s being proposed, how can people trust the process?”
– WY House Representative Christopher Knapp,
Gillette, Oct 15, 2025
Public-Private-Partnerships (PPP)
It is important to understand what a public-private-partnership (PPP) was understood to be long ago, and how the original intent of these partnerships has progressed left-ward away from our Republican Form of Government and towards socialism and Marxism (words that are often overused today but correctly fit within this context).
The term public-private-partnership is misleading because “public” does not refer to citizens or taxpayers, but instead refers to “public officials”. Within the ED world sometimes “public officials” means elected officials, and other times it may simply mean government employees. Misleading language and concepts are necessary among ED organizations and consultants because they simply cannot come up with a straightforward constitutional argument to justify their existence.
In the faraway past PPPs were generally *constitutional because they were made up of public elected officials making plans/agreements with private business (ideally after a competitive bidding process) to contract for necessary infrastructure projects. An example would be elected city or county officials creating a partnership with a company to repair or re-pave old aging roads or highways.
*Our Republican Form of Government is a government which derives all its power from the people (United States Constitution Article IV, Section 4; Wyoming State Constitution Article 1, Section 1). We the people entrust limited power, via the enumeration of proscriptions and prescriptions from both federal and state constitutions, to representatives that we elect through democratic elections. This is loosely referred to as representative government. Infrastructure decisions made directly by elected officials (representatives) for limited actions necessary for the health and safety of the people is generally constitutional.
It is also important to differentiate between necessary projects versus economic development projects. Using taxpayer funds to repair or replace old and faulty sewage infrastructure is necessary for the health and safety of the public. Using taxpayer funds to extend the square footage of a corporate owned factory is not necessary for the health and safety of the public. Using taxpayer funds to build or repair bridges is necessary for the health and safety of the public. Using taxpayer funds to purchase a machine shop for a private business to lease is not necessary for the health and safety of the public.
The only time an ED project would be lawfully acceptable in Wyoming is with the temporary 1 cent sales tax project(s) that we cast our votes, for or against, on our ballots during elections. Examples would be a temporary 1 cent sales tax for a new public swimming pool or events center. Swimming pools and event centers are obviously not necessary for the health and safety of the public, but it is the direct voting process by we the people that will decide if a temporary tax will be taken for these specific projects.
Back in the day, the public entity in PPPs were often joint power boards – usually a combination of city and county powers to share both expenses and decision-making authority. Joint power boards still address infrastructure needs today, but they are increasingly being misused as “pass-through” entities to receive and hand-out state or federal grants to be portioned-out to private business(s) carrying out often questionable ED projects.
It is necessary to understand that the private entity in a PPP relies solely on the established authority of an official public (governmental) entity to receive government grants. A private business cannot receive PPP grants directly. This is why Josh Dorrell with the Wyoming Business Council will quickly correct anyone who asserts that they give taxpayer money directly to private business. Technically the WBC does not directly hand money to a private business, instead they simply use a government pass-through to carry out their wishes. This can also be seen with federal grants such as CDBGs and CSBGs that use the WY Health department, DFS or WCDA as the pass-through.
Today most PPPs are unconstitutional because they are ultimately partnerships created between private ED organizations (non-governmental organizations or NGOs) and private business entities that together plan and carry-out unnecessary ED projects using taxpayer funds.
Originally many of these ED organizations started out as quasi-governmental organizations (QGOs) that had a majority of public elected officials on their boards along with a minority of private individuals they appointed. Over time however the QGOs began contracting NGOs to carry out the “public” end of a PPP.
Put another way, when public elected officials appoint private individuals to carry out the public end of a PPP, citizens are no longer represented by someone they elected and can hold accountable.
Because this type of ED organizational evolution begins with an entity made from a majority of elected officials, economic development NGOs that are established in later generations will still tout themselves as having legitimate power and clout because of their organizational roots, and because, after all, they have taxpayer money to spend in whatever they wish.
Keeping the name of the municipality or county in their organization’s official name carries this masquerade into the psyche of unknowing taxpayers. If the ED organization’s name sounds legitimate, most people assume they are legitimate.
To better illustrate this point, below is an image that shows the evolution of economic development entities that originated as a Casper/Natrona County Joint Powers Board:
In 1987 the City of Casper-Natrona County Casper Area Economic Development Joint Powers Board was created. Originally this entity was a QGO because it was a mix of public elected officials and (appointed) private individuals, with a majority of public elected officials having 3 of the 5 board member positions. Between 1987 and 2025 this joint powers agreement has been amended seven times. In 2002 their official name was (understandably) shortened to Economic Development Joint Powers Board (EDJPB). All other amendments specify “earmarks” reflecting the growing revenue over the years from a multitude of 1 cent sales taxes that Natrona County voters approved.
In 2007 CAEDA was created and the EDJPB began contracting them to carry out the “economic development activities” that Casper/Natrona citizens continued to approve on their ballots. By 2019 CAEDA was doing business as (dba) Advance Casper. Also in 2019 the EDJPB began receiving even more revenue from their share of a Rocky Mountain Power Franchise Fee being collected by the City of Casper.
Advance Casper presently has 26 board or team members with varying titles – yet only one is an actual elected official. So the original Casper/Natrona ED entity that had a 5 member board grew to over 26 members, and the number of elected officials on that board shrunk from 3 to only 1. That is no longer a government entity made from a majority of elected officials, it is a private NGO that happens to have 1 elected official among 25 private individuals.
At some point in time online information regarding the EDJPB simply vanished – even though they still exist, no board members are specified anywhere, no meeting dates or locations announced, and no meeting minutes or financial records can be found anywhere online a citizen would think to look.
At an unknown time, Forward Casper was created and has a totally private membership – presumably these are investors.
The EDJPB budget for 2026 is $889,825 with $555,205 going to Advance Casper. Because Advance Casper is ultimately an NGO, there is no financial records publicly accessible to account for these or any taxpayer funds they’ve received in the past, no public meetings are announced, and no meeting minutes are available.
Click here for more on Casper-Natrona EDJPB. Click here for the original EDJPB 1987 Agreement and all amended versions through 2025.
Most WY towns, cities or counties have some sort of ED entity acknowledged at their government website. Not unlike the Casper/Natrona ED disaster detailed above, when one tries to discover more specific info about that ED entity the thread immediately becomes tangled and opaque rather than straightforward and transparent. This happens because you are being led away from your elected representative government to an alternative entity made up of people you do not know, do not recognize, and certainly never voted for. The only thing you can be certain of is that they are spending your money on projects that are not likely necessary for the health and safety of the public.
Regardless how far removed from the public trough, most ED organizations receive taxpayer funds from county and/or municipal governments annually – sometimes these payments are simply budgeted as member fees. The leadership of most ED organizations are made almost entirely of business leaders, bankers and/or individuals working in medical, education or social service related institutions. Most ED organizations do not publicize their meetings or meeting minutes. Most ED organizations do not publicize their financial records. In other words, people you never voted for are making decisions to spend your money on ED projects you probably never wanted – with no transparency or accountability to speak of.
What’s even worse is they are using our money to reimagine our communities and culture. Today the Wyoming Business Council is obsessed with growing our population and building new housing to accommodate that growth. Thus their mission creep has traveled from economic diversity to population growth and real estate.
As you can see there is much hidden behind the “public” façade of ED organizations. Trying to nail down who they are, what they are doing, what money they work with, and with what authority can be a daunting task. And every ED project is a new shell game to try to figure out. This jumble of confusion for your average taxpayer is a significant public info black-out that these organizations rely upon to discourage citizen curiosity and inspection altogether.
Commissioner Hansen would like time to look it over … and to open it up for transparency purposes. Mary Crosby doesn’t recommend doing it that way as it hasn’t worked in the past to give the County what is needed.
– Mary Crosby Grant Writer, Lincoln County Meeting Minutes, June 4, 2024
…
So far we have only focused on the “public” part of public-private-partnerships. Soon we will cover the “private” issues in these partnerships and the public info black-outs that come with confidential agreements.
« Previous Article | Next Article »