There is one option that may serve to help Kentucky to in at least the short term support the states economy during a transition. If you are to check the Idaho National Labs Hydropower site and search the state of Kentucky there are multiple over 100 MW sites in the state for hydroelectric sites. These could produce alternate electricity for a very small part of the coal produced in Kentucky currently. There construction also would provide employment for people in the state during a transition but in the future other employment will need to be found for former miners. This transition though would be expensive as building large dams is not going to be cheap. There is also the environmental consequences of the construction of the dams, I am not aware of any migratory fish in the area but Kentucky river do contain many game fish which could be lost in this process.
From my searching a move away from fossil fuels will be a negative for Kentucky as the state is currently an energy producer but in a switch away from the fossil fuel regime they will suffer because their geography does not favor the publicly popular alternatives. This could lead to them becoming an energy importer. Even considering unpopular alternatives does not seem to support the transition helping the state, as the millions of tons of coal currently produced could not easily be offset by hydroelectric power. In a state with limited tourist appeal and few other resources this could be a great risk to the state economy perhaps more so than for Texas. Although Texas and California may face large losses from a transition away from fossil fuels they have other energy industries to fall back on. Kentucky and several of the other coal producing Appalachian states could in theory follow a similar path with hydroelectric power but there would likely be environmental resistance and legal challenges that would prevent this transition.