Across communities, project teams often encounter the same frustrating reality: the loudest voices in a conversation are not always the most representative of public opinion.
When a project is announced, opposition frequently mobilizes first. Those who have concerns or objections are often highly motivated to attend meetings, organize online, and make their views known. Their visibility can quickly shape the public narrative and create the impression that resistance is widespread and deeply entrenched.
Meanwhile, many supporters remain largely invisible. Anger is one of the most powerful drivers of engagement; folks in favor of the project are less likely to coalesce opponents. They are busy running businesses, raising families, commuting to work, and managing the demands of everyday life. Facing neighbors and community members in a contentious public debate is another hurdle for supporter engagement.
This behavior produces a distorted picture of community sentiment. A relatively small group of opponents can dominate the conversation early, while a larger group of supporters remains silent.
We call this dynamic the advocacy gap: the difference between private support and public participation.
For developers, closing that gap is one of the most important and overlooked challenges in community engagement. Success depends not only on understanding who supports a project, but on finding ways to meet supporters where they are, making participation accessible, and helping them join the conversation before others define it for them.
Project teams often view misinformation as the primary challenge in community engagement, but the bigger challenge is uncertainty.
People want to understand how a project will affect their community. When answers are not readily available, they turn to neighbors, community groups, local leaders, and other trusted voices for information and context. People don’t wait in a vacuum when information is incomplete – they fill in the gaps.
This dynamic has important implications for project developers. The challenge is not just whether a project communicates, but whether it communicates before opposition can begin hardening community perception.
If questions go unanswered for too long, if context arrives after concerns have already begun circulating, the narrative does not pause. It moves on without you.
By the time a project team begins communicating, community members may have already spent weeks discussing the project. And once a narrative becomes established, even accurate information has to work harder to catch up.
When misunderstandings or incomplete information become established, the consequences can be significant:
Those delays compound quickly.
Meanwhile, proactive digital outreach often represents only a fraction of the cost of a single month of project delay.
The economics become surprisingly simple: Early clarity is inexpensive. Late corrections are not.
If the challenge is activating supporters earlier, the next question becomes obvious: Where do you reach them?
Most outreach tactics ask people to come to you. Attend a meeting. Visit a website. Read a mailer.
Text messaging flips that model.
Instead of waiting for supporters to engage, you bring the conversation directly to them.
The numbers help explain why it works. According to Pew Research Center, 98% of U.S. adults own a cellphone and 91% own a smartphone.[1] Industry data shows that text messages achieve open rates approaching 98%, with most messages read within minutes.[2]
More importantly, texting reduces friction.
A resident who would never attend a public hearing may be willing to sign a letter of support from their phone. A business owner who does not have time to follow every project update may still respond to a simple text asking them to act.
We see this in practice nearly every day. Through MessageRally, KAOH's turnkey texting advocacy service, we regularly generate 30+ letters of support from a single text outreach campaign in small counties with vocal opposition groups.
For project teams facing tight timelines, quiet supporters, or fast-moving opposition, the speed and accessibility that texting offers can change the outcome of an engagement effort, and ultimately project approval.
MessageRally was built for this exact challenge. KAOH will identify project supporters, reach them through targeted text outreach, and mobilize them for the actions that matter most, including letters of support, public meeting attendance, testimonials, and key decision points.
If your team is struggling to find supporters, generate visible advocacy, or move people from passive approval to public action, we can help. To learn more about MessageRally, reach out to our team or visit MessageRally.com.
By Kelly O'Neil
New York is not backing away from its clean energy ambitions. But the politics of getting projects built are changing — quickly.
For years, renewable energy siting debates in New York were often treated as a permitting challenge: complex, technical, highly regulated, and ultimately solvable through a state-level process; but that assumption no longer holds.
Across parts of upstate New York, opposition to renewable energy projects has broadened from isolated local resistance into something more coordinated, more political, and more emotionally charged. What began as project-by-project opposition is increasingly becoming a regional narrative about land use, rural character, local control, farmland preservation, and whether communities feel they have a meaningful voice in decisions that will shape the places they live.
At the center of that tension is New York’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting and Electric Transmission, or ORES, the state entity charged with moving major renewable energy projects through a consolidated siting process. That role has made ORES essential to New York’s energy transition — and, increasingly, a target.
In early April, Senate Republicans — led by Finance Committee Ranking Member Tom O'Mara — sent a formal letter to ORES raising concerns about the agency's broad authority to supersede local zoning and land-use laws, its approval of projects on productive farmland and near sensitive habitats, and what they described as a lack of transparency and accountability. The letter wasn't a fringe complaint. It reflected pressure that has been building across both parties and both chambers.
The pressure on ORES came to a head in late April, when executive director Zeryai Hagos stepped down the same morning three separate lawsuits were filed against the agency out of Montgomery County — including one filed by the county itself. Jason Zehr, a longtime DPS official, has since stepped in as interim executive director, with DPS emphasizing continuity in permitting and technical review. But leadership continuity alone will not resolve the larger issue: in some communities, the siting process is facing a legitimacy challenge.
For developers and investors, that matters. Permitting risk in New York is no longer just regulatory. It’s reputational, it’s political, and it’s increasingly being shaped before a formal application is even filed.
One of the biggest mistakes the industry can make right now is treating all renewable opposition the same. Based on KAOH Media’s work supporting and monitoring renewable energy projects across New York, we have seen that opposition looks very different depending on the asset class, the geography, and the local political environment.
For solar and wind, opposition in parts of upstate New York has become broader and more regional. The dominant concerns are often about land use, viewsheds, rural character, farmland, cumulative impacts, and whether state policy is moving faster than local trust.
Battery energy storage systems, by contrast, tend to face a different form of opposition. BESS concerns are often more hyperlocal and incident-driven. Residents are less likely to begin from an ideological opposition to clean energy and more likely to focus on safety, fire risk, emergency response, proximity to homes, and whether independent experts can validate the claims being made.
In other words - geography matters, local history matters, and the messenger matters.
Large-scale renewable development in New York takes years from inception to operation — a reality NYSERDA has acknowledged in its own solicitation materials, which increasingly build in requirements around stakeholder engagement alongside the usual permitting, interconnection, financing, and supply chain milestones.
That sequencing is critical. Too often, community engagement is treated as something that begins when a project enters formal review. In today’s environment, that’s too late. By the time a permit application is public, a narrative may already be formed. Local opposition groups may already be organized. Elected officials may already be receiving calls. Opponents may already have framed the project as a threat to local control, public safety, farmland, or community identity.
Once that happens, it’s hard to catch up. Developers need to front-load engagement before the opposition controls the narrative. That means listening before presenting. It means understanding which concerns are technical, which are emotional, and which are rooted in a deeper lack of trust. It means identifying credible third-party validators early, especially for storage projects where safety concerns can define the entire conversation.
Even if ORES remains structurally intact, the current political environment has weakened its perceived legitimacy in some regions. That doesn’t mean the office can’t do its job, but it does mean developers should not go around community acceptance seeking only state approval.
In fact, the opposite may increasingly be true: the more a project is perceived as relying solely on state authority, the more it may need to overcompensate on transparency, local alignment, and trust-building.
For developers, this means community acceptance can’t be outsourced to the state, and it can’t be solved only by counsel, or put off until the hearings.
Projects will need more time, planning, stakeholder mapping, local listening, rapid response, and disciplined communications from the earliest stages of development.
New York’s clean energy transition is not just a policy challenge. It is a trust challenge. The projects that succeed will not simply be the ones with the strongest applications. They will be the ones that understand the communities around them, anticipate the politics ahead of them, and communicate with enough transparency to earn permission beyond the permit.
That is the work ahead, and this is the work we are doing every day at KAOH Media: helping developers understand local dynamics earlier, communicate with communities more clearly, and build the trust required to move critical infrastructure forward in these complex environments.
By Allan Hug
The data center industry is no stranger to scrutiny. Over the past 24 months alone, more than $64 billion in U.S. data center projects have been blocked or delayed because of community opposition (Source: DataCenterWatch.org), representing a significant loss in economic activity, job creation, and tax revenue. As demand for digital infrastructure accelerates, developers are increasingly finding themselves at the center of a new reality, one where growth hinges on public perception and acceptance.
A decade ago, most projects moved forward with limited visibility and even less community engagement. Today, that approach is not just outdated, it is a liability. Communities are more informed, more organized, and more willing to challenge large-scale developments. Residents, policymakers, and advocacy groups are asking direct and often difficult questions about water usage, energy demand, land use, and long-term local impact. When those questions are not addressed early, they do not disappear. They escalate into public hearings, media narratives, and organized opposition. Left unaddressed, the outcome becomes predictable: delays, rising costs, and in many cases, permit denial.
What is less obvious at the outset, but becomes unmistakably clear over time, is that the difference between projects that advance and those that stall is rarely technical. It is strategic. More specifically, it is how and when trust is built with the community.
From our experiences advising complex infrastructure projects across the country, the inflection point is remarkably consistent. The projects that encounter friction treat community engagement as a downstream task. The projects that move with greater certainty treat it as a core discipline from day one. That distinction, while subtle early on, compounds quickly.
This is where integrity becomes more than a principle. It becomes an operating standard. Developers must align what they say with what they can substantiate. Communities expect real data, not generalized claims, particularly around water usage, energy sourcing, noise, and environmental impact. They expect commitments to extend beyond announcements and into long-term accountability. They expect an understanding that each community has distinct priorities, and that credibility is built by addressing those realities directly.
Transparency is what makes that credibility visible. The required shift is straightforward but not always easy to execute: move from reactive communication to proactive engagement. The most effective developers begin conversations well before formal processes require it. They translate complex information into clear, accessible terms. They create space for dialogue rather than relying on one-way messaging. And they maintain consistency across every channel, knowing that even small discrepancies can undermine confidence.
A vacuum forms when this doesn’t happen. And in that vacuum, others define the narrative. Opposition groups, incomplete information, and misinterpretation can quickly shape public perception. Once that perception takes hold, reversing it becomes both costly and time intensive. Many projects falter not because they lack merit, but because they lose control of the narrative at a critical moment.
This is why the most experienced developers approach public relations and public affairs differently today than they did even a few years ago. They do not treat it as a support function, but as a strategic lever. When integrated early, it unveils stakeholder risks before they become public challenges. It aligns internal teams around a clear and credible story. It builds informed support within the community and ensures that engagement with policymakers is both thoughtful and effective.
The developers leading the industry are already making this shift. They embed communications expertise at the earliest stages of planning and conduct stakeholder mapping before sites are announced. They proactively share sustainability data and engage communities before positions harden. And they recognize that the right guidance at the right time can materially change the trajectory of a project.
The conclusion is straightforward: The success of a data center project is no longer depends solely on engineering or capital deployment, but is determined by whether a community understands it, trusts it, and ultimately supports it.
Trust, in this environment, functions as critical infrastructure. It cannot be added later, accelerated under pressure, or improvised in moments of friction. But when built early – with the right strategy and expertise behind it – it becomes one of the most reliable drivers of project success.
By Miranda Kessel | Sr. Director
Infrastructure development today is shaped as much by community dynamics as by economic viability and market conditions. In small towns across America, renewable energy projects rarely fail due to technical shortcomings. More often, they stall when resident concerns go unaddressed, opposition voices dominate the narrative through misinformation, and local officials feel exposed to political risk.
That’s why earning a Social License to Operate is essential to project success. Simply put, a social license to operate is the informal, local acceptance of a project—a measure of trust, legitimacy, and consent earned over time through responsible behavior, transparent communication, and sustained community engagement.
Too often, developers support local initiatives or establish partnerships, but those efforts aren’t broadly communicated or recognized by the public. Creating visible local recognition makes a difference. When investments tied to energy projects are publicly celebrated through local media, community events, or project communications, they reinforce shared benefits and demonstrate a long-term commitment. KAOH embraces four principles to help projects earn community support:
While today’s political and energy landscapes remain uncertain, organizations can better control outcomes through relationship building and in-person dialogue. Investing early, communicating consistently, and demonstrating authentic commitment reduces risk, accelerates approvals, and builds reputational capital that extends well beyond a single project. By prioritizing genuine engagement, companies can create durable benefits for host communities, corporate reputations, and the industry as a whole.
By Andy Davis | U.S. Army Veteran, 75th Ranger Regiment
Introduction
I wore the uniform before I wore the renewable energy badge.
I served in the Army during a period when American foreign policy was deeply entangled with energy security. We do not always say that out loud, but anyone who served in that era understood it. Oil fields, shipping lanes, and regional stability were not abstract geopolitical ideas. They appeared in briefings, operational planning, and the strategic assumptions behind many deployments.
Today my work sits in a very different place: the American clean energy sector. But the motivation behind that work is surprisingly similar. I hope that the next generation of Americans will be less likely to serve in conflicts driven, even indirectly, by the protection of global energy supply chains.
Energy security is national security.
In 2026, that reality is less about rhetoric and more about practical capability. The question is not simply how much energy a country produces, but whether that energy can be built quickly, protected from disruption, and delivered reliably to the systems that power a modern economy.
Strategic Independence Through Domestic Energy
When a nation relies heavily on unstable regions or geopolitical competitors for energy supplies, its strategic flexibility narrows. History shows that energy dependence can influence trade negotiations, diplomatic posture, and military commitments.
Domestic energy capacity expands that flexibility.
Over the past decade the United States has increased production across oil, natural gas, renewables, and nuclear energy. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the country is now one of the world's largest combined energy producers across multiple sources.
That diversification matters, because it reduces exposure to global supply shocks and limits the ability of adversarial nations to use energy access as leverage.
But energy independence in the modern era is not only about where fuel comes from. It is also about whether the energy system itself can withstand disruption. Resilience and redundancy have become just as important as production.
The Threat Environment Around Infrastructure
The modern threat environment surrounding energy infrastructure has changed significantly.
Federal agencies including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have repeatedly warned that foreign state actors attempt to access and position themselves within critical infrastructure networks. Energy systems are a primary concern because disruptions could cascade across transportation, finance, communications, and defense systems.
Physical threats are evolving as well. Conflicts around the world have demonstrated how relatively inexpensive drone technology can reach and damage strategic infrastructure targets far from front lines.
At the same time, climate-related disasters are placing growing strain on the energy grid. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that the United States now experiences dozens of billion-dollar weather disasters annually, many of which damage energy infrastructure and trigger large-scale outages.
Energy systems today must be designed with these realities in mind. Capacity alone is not enough. Security now requires three overlapping capabilities:
Capacity – enough domestic energy supply to meet national demand
Diversity – multiple generation sources to prevent single-point failures
Resilience – infrastructure hardened against cyber, physical, and climate threats
Clean energy technologies increasingly contribute to all three.
Speed and the Digital Economy
National security is increasingly digital.
Artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, financial markets, military logistics, and cybersecurity operations all rely on massive computing infrastructure. Data centers supporting these systems require enormous and rapidly growing amounts of electricity.
The challenge is not simply generating power, but generating it quickly enough to support technological growth.
Many large-scale renewable energy projects can move from permitting to operation faster than traditional generation infrastructure. Solar installations, battery energy storage systems, and hybrid projects can often be deployed in modular stages rather than requiring decade-long construction timelines.
That speed has strategic implications. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, electricity demand from data centers and digital infrastructure is expected to grow significantly over the coming decade.
Energy systems that can scale within two to three years rather than a decade provide a meaningful advantage for national competitiveness and security.
Resilience Through Distributed Systems
Traditional centralized energy systems are highly efficient, but they can also create vulnerabilities. When large portions of power generation are concentrated in a small number of facilities, disruptions can and do have wide-reaching consequences.
Distributed energy resources provide a different model.
Microgrids, localized solar installations, battery storage, and diversified generation portfolios allow regions to maintain power even if portions of the grid fail. These systems can isolate disruptions, restore service faster, and support critical infrastructure during emergencies.
Military planners often discuss the ability to move forces “from fort to port,” meaning the capability to mobilize domestically and deploy abroad when necessary. Energy infrastructure plays a quiet but critical role in that readiness.
Resilient power systems ensure that domestic disruptions do not slow national response capabilities.
KAOH Perspective: Building the Infrastructure of Security
From the perspective of companies working directly in project development and community engagement, the strategic importance of energy infrastructure is visible at ground level.
Projects succeed or fail based on permitting timelines, interconnection capacity, transmission availability, and local community support. Each of those factors determines how quickly new energy resources can be brought online.
For developers and infrastructure investors, resilience and speed are not abstract policy goals but operational challenges that shape every project.
Accelerating responsible permitting, modernizing grid infrastructure, and expanding interconnection capacity are all essential steps toward building the resilient domestic energy system national security now requires.
In many ways, the work happening across the renewable energy sector today is infrastructure development with strategic consequences.
From Rhetoric to Readiness
Political slogans about energy come and go, but strategic realities remain constant.
True energy security powers the domestic economy reliably, protects critical infrastructure from disruption, supports military readiness, and preserves diplomatic flexibility.
It also reduces the likelihood that American service members will be asked to stabilize distant regions primarily to protect energy flows.
As a veteran who transitioned into the renewable energy sector, I do not see clean energy development as an ideological project.
I see it as preventative defense.
Every megawatt built domestically.
Every battery deployed.
Every resilient microgrid installed.
Every diversified energy portfolio.
Each one strengthens the foundation beneath American national security.
And perhaps most importantly, it helps ensure that future generations inherit an energy system strong enough to support both prosperity and peace.
KAOH Media announced the launch of Fieldwise Civic Engagement, a new nationwide community engagement network supporting land use, infrastructure, and clean energy projects. Built on trust and local insight, Fieldwise delivers scalable, people-centered outreach through a network of trained field consultants across the United States.
St. Louis, MO - (February 4, 2026): Award-winning renewable energy PR leader KAOH Media is proud to announce new division Fieldwise Civic Engagement, one of the nation’s largest and most effective turnkey community engagement networks. Fieldwise is designed to support efficient land use, infrastructure development, brownfield reclamation, and clean energy projects with trusted, on-the-ground local insight and meaningful engagement. The network will also offer support for Tribal Nations initiatives on previously impacted or underutilized lands.
Fieldwise boasts a network of 2,000 trained field consultants and community liaisons positioned across the United States, and delivers a scalable, people-centered model to meet the growing need for real-world public engagement in project host communities.
“When I first saw Fieldwise’s approach, I was struck by the scale and its simplicity,” says Andy Davis, lead for Project Permitting, Stakeholder Engagement & Regulatory Affairs at Fieldwise Civic Engagement. “In a moment when land use for energy and infrastructure projects consistently faces rising public scrutiny, Fieldwise has figured out how to get hyper-local at scale. The ability to mobilize trusted community liaisons anywhere in the country gives developers a strategic advantage you just can’t replicate with traditional outreach.”
The Fieldwise network offers a new level of expertise in civic engagement for the development sector. Built on a foundation of transparency, field-based intelligence, and trust-centered communication, Fieldwise offers an innovative approach for developers as a comprehensive community-engagement resource unmatched in scale or precision.
“Fieldwise Civic Engagement was created to fill a critical gap in development where local trust, early communication, and authentic human connection often determine whether a project succeeds,” says Brad MacAfee, CEO of Fieldwise Civic Engagement. “The rapid growth of KAOH Media over the past decade has clearly shown the urgent demand for a grounded, community-first approach. Developers today need more than digital outreach; they need respected local influencers embedded in the community who can listen, learn, and help build shared vision from day one.”
Fieldwise provides clients with a full suite of localized engagement services, including early-stage education campaigns, landowner outreach, facilitation of good-neighbor agreements, and supports complex critical infrastructure projects, including utility-scale solar, wind, nuclear, and advanced geothermal energy, along with data centers, battery storage systems, and electric transmission.
“As the clean energy and data infrastructure landscape accelerates, communities are demanding real transparency and genuine connection from developers,” says Fieldwise Co-Founder Allan Hug. “Fieldwise Civic Engagement is built for this moment — bringing the right people, the right approach, and the right local perspective to help projects move forward with trust, alignment, and shared understanding.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________
About Fieldwise Civic Engagement
Fieldwise Civic Engagement (FaCE) is a wholly owned division of KAOH Media, offering skilled local representatives including former educators, veterans, civic leaders, and deeply connected residents recruited for cultural fit, credibility, and the ability to translate project information into meaningful, relatable conversations in host communities. In regions where projects intersect with Tribal lands, treaty areas, or places of cultural importance, Fieldwise works with representatives who understand Tribal processes, respect sovereignty, and know how to engage thoughtfully and appropriately at the local level. For more information, please visit
http://www.FieldwiseUSA.com
About KAOH Media
Founded in 2014 and named Top Renewable Energy Marketing Firm of 2025 by Energy Business Review, KAOH Media is an employee-owned, full-service public relations, grassroots public affairs, and marketing agency dedicated to helping organizations bring clean energy and sustainable infrastructure projects to the United States and beyond. The agency has supported renewable project development in 44 states and four countries to date. For more information, please visit
https://www.KAOHmedia.com.
“Fieldwise Civic Engagement was created to fill a critical gap in development where local trust, early communication, and authentic human connection often determine whether a project succeeds,” says Brad MacAfee, CEO of Fieldwise Civic Engagement.
Media Contact
Nancy Schoenheide
KAOH Media
1 248.390.7340
nancy@kaohmedia.com
https://kaohmedia.com/
Follow Fieldwise on social media:
Fieldwise LinkedIn | Fieldwise Facebook
Executive Summary: Public trust is no longer a soft variable in the energy transition; it is a structural constraint. Over the last decade, strong national majorities in favor of renewable energy created the impression that deployment would be limited primarily by technology, cost curves, and policy design. The 2024–2025 opinion cycle tells a more complicated story. As projects scale up, move closer to communities, and intersect with polarized politics, local trust is the deciding factor determining whether assets are permitted, financed, and built.
This report distills the most authoritative public-opinion data available and KAOH Media’s seasoned knowledge to reveal three structural dynamics that any serious participant in U.S. energy markets must understand:
Political Polarity in Renewables- Support for renewables remains high, but the easy gains are over. Solar and wind continue to be the most trusted electricity sources, with roughly three-quarters of Americans favoring additional deployment. However, support has slipped 10–12 percentage points from its peak in 2020 and is likely to continue to fall almost entirely due to conservative voters becoming less enthusiastic.
Emerging Technologies of SMR’s & BESS- Nuclear power and energy storage are emerging as reliable assets in the public mind. After years of opposition, nuclear now enjoys stable majority support, with around six-in-ten Americans favoring more plants. Battery energy storage systems have similar favorability, with about 71% of Americans saying they would accept a BESS facility in their community, provided safety is credibly addressed.
A Division in Urban vs. Rural Sentiment may Paint a False Picture - The urban–rural trust gap has become the central friction point in U.S. siting and permitting. Urban and suburban residents typically view renewable projects as modern, clean infrastructure. Rural residents, who host most utility-scale assets, regard them as highly visible intrusions to local identity. Polling showing high national support for renewable energy development tells an incomplete story; hyper-local trust has become decisive.
Looking ahead to 2026, these attitudinal dynamics will intersect with three external forces: federal policy uncertainty, intensifying anti-renewable rhetoric, and disruptions in tax equity and capital markets. The expected result is a landscape in which conceptual support for clean energy remains strong, but local trust becomes more fragile and outcome-determinative.
KAOH Media and Fieldwise Civil Engagement are purpose-built for today’s development environment, bringing years of experience in the elements this report shows to be most critical to project victory: anticipating risk early, earning trust at every level, and aligning strategies with local values. As conditions grow more complex, developers, utilities, and long-term asset owners that treat trust-building as a core discipline on par with interconnection, engineering, and tax structuring will be best positioned for an enduring competitive advantage.
1. Methodology and Data Sources
The analysis in this report is built on a synthesis of large-scale, nationally representative opinion research conducted in 2024–2025, augmented by geographic modeling and issue-specific surveys.
Most of these surveys rely on probability samples of 1,000–5,000 U.S. adults with margins of error typically around ±2–4 percentage points. Because question wording differs by source, this report emphasizes directional trends and high-level indicators such as “favor expansion,” “support R&D,” or “support local siting.” Where figures are combined across surveys, they should be read as informed benchmarks rather than as a single integrated dataset.
2. The National Public Opinion Landscape (2024–2025)
Despite a volatile political environment, several fundamentals about public trust in energy remain stable:
Uncovering the Story Beneath National Polling: Urban/Suburban vs. Rural Population Attitudes
These topline numbers describe the national mood, but they do not capture the local friction that ultimately determines whether an individual project advances. For better understanding, we must look deeper into sectors, geography, and political identity.
Table 1. National Support for Energy Expansion or R&D (2024–2025 Polls)
| Energy Sector | Indicator | Support Level | Primary Source |
| Solar | Favor more solar farms | ≈78% | Pew Research Center, 2024 |
| Wind | Favor more wind farms | ≈72% | Pew Research Center, 2024 |
| Nuclear | Favor more nuclear plants | ≈60% | Gallup 2025; Pew 2025 |
| Battery Storage (BESS) | Support local BESS siting | 71% | Firetrace International, 2025 |
| Natural Gas | Support more natural gas R&D | 52% | ecoAmerica ACPS, 2024 |
Note: Figures are rounded and originate from different surveys; they should be interpreted as comparative indicators, not as a unified data set.
3. Sector Deep Dives
3.1 Solar Energy
Solar retains the strongest reservoir of public trust among electricity sources. Roughly 78% of Americans favor more solar, and support among Democrats exceeds 90%. Solar also remains popular among most Republicans, although it has experienced a pronounced decline since 2020.
From 2020 to 2025, national support for solar fell by roughly 10–12 percentage points. Pew’s breakdowns attribute almost all of this decline to Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents, whose attitudes toward climate policy and large-scale renewable infrastructure have hardened as these issues have become tightly linked to political identity.
For developers, the lesson is clear: the “public trust dividend” is no longer inexhaustible. In counties where solar has been deployed aggressively without visible community benefits or local partnership, opposition is increasingly framed not simply as a land-use conflict but as a question of fairness, transparency, and power dynamics between rural communities and distant utilities, investors, or urban ratepayers.
3.2 Wind Energy
Wind sits just behind solar in national favorability, with about 72% of Americans favoring more wind developments. However, wind projects are often more visually and politically salient than solar, which has a lower profile design. Turbines dominate skylines, are the subject of wildlife and noise debates, and have become emblematic of disruptive renewable development writ large in several high-profile political fights.
As with solar, Pew’s trend data shows declining Republican support for wind since 2020, along with some erosion among Independents. AP-NORC / EPIC polling points to slipping support for offshore wind specifically, even among voters who remain broadly pro-renewable. In many communities, the question is no longer whether wind power is desirable in principle, but whether a specific project has been sited fairly, designed responsibly, and integrated respectfully into local landscapes.
From a trust perspective, wind is the sector where the gap between national endorsement and local acceptance is most pronounced. Community concerns cluster around viewshed impacts, wildlife impacts, noise, property values, and doubts about who truly economically benefits. These concerns are especially strong in rural counties with deep roots and a history of feeling overlooked by state and federal policymakers.
3.3 Nuclear Energy
Nuclear energy has experienced a significant, sustained shift in public standing. After more than a decade in which opposition or ambivalence was the norm, Gallup’s 2025 polling shows approximately 61% of Americans favor using nuclear power as a source of U.S. electricity. Pew finds similar levels of support for building new plants under the moniker of Small Modular Reactors or “SMR’s” for short.
Several drivers underpin this turnaround: growing recognition of the need for firm, low-carbon capacity; heightened concern about grid reliability under conditions of extreme weather and rising demand; and increased awareness of advanced reactor concepts and small modular reactors (SMRs). ecoAmerica’s ACPS 2024 indicates that 56% of Americans support greater R&D spending on advanced nuclear technologies, with smaller partisan gaps than seen on many other energy questions.
Nuclear is emerging as a potential bipartisan bridge: Republicans remain somewhat more open, but Democratic support has steadily risen as nuclear is reframed as a climate solution. For policymakers and developers, the opportunity is to anchor nuclear conversations in reliability, decarbonization, and rigorous safety oversight, while being candid about its cost, waste management, and project-delivery risks.
3.4 Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS)
Battery energy storage has moved quickly from an obscure grid component to a central focus of public trust. Firetrace International’s 2025 national survey finds that 71% of Americans support BESS facilities in their community.
However, experience shows that storage projects are highly vulnerable to safety hazard narratives. Highly publicized fires, rumors about toxicity, or confusion about emergency response protocols can move opinion sharply, particularly in small communities. Fire chiefs, EMS leaders, and local officials often seek much more detailed assurance about containment and monitoring than project proponents expect to provide.
Handled well, BESS projects can strengthen local trust: co-developing emergency response plans with local departments, offering site tours and training, and explaining fail-safe design in plain language all help communities see storage as resilience infrastructure. Handled poorly, BESS can become a flashpoint that constrains not only storage but also the renewable projects that depend on it.
3.5 Natural Gas
Natural gas occupies a transitional position in public opinion. Many Americans still view it as cleaner than coal and essential for reliability; others increasingly see it as a source of methane emissions and long-term climate risk. ecoAmerica’s ACPS 2024 suggests that 52% of Americans support additional natural gas R&D — commanding lower support than renewables and nuclear but still a national majority.
Attitudes toward gas are highly sensitive to framing. When survey questions emphasize local jobs, affordability, and grid stability, support — especially among Republicans — rises sharply. When questions highlight methane leakage, climate impacts, or the risk of “locking in” fossil infrastructure, support falls, particularly among Democrats and younger voters. Several states have gone so far as to label natural gas a form of “green energy” in statute, a move that both signals political backing and invites criticism from environmental groups.
The key takeaway is that gas maintains significant social license in many regions, especially where it underpins local employment and industrial activity, but that license is no longer unconditional. The public trajectory is toward a more conditional acceptance of gas: tolerable as a near- to medium-term reliability resource but not widely embraced as the backbone of a 2050 system.
4. Geography and the Urban–Rural Trust Divide
The most consequential structural pattern emerging from the 2024–2025 research is not simply partisan polarization; it’s the widening urban–rural trust divide. Yale Climate Opinion Maps show strong support for renewable energy research and renewable generation on public lands in every state. Yet Pew’s deep dives into local energy developments reveal that rural residents, who host a disproportionate share of projects, hold systematically different views than urban and suburban residents.
Rural adults are more likely to say that large solar or wind farms make the landscape less attractive and are less likely to say that such projects would help the local economy. Urban and suburban respondents, by contrast, tend to highlight modernization, climate benefits, and economic opportunity. In practical terms, a project that is coded as “visual intrusion” and “outside imposition” in some rural contexts is viewed as “progress” in many urban contexts.
Table 2. Urban vs. Rural Attitudes Toward Local Renewable Energy Projects
| Perception | Urban | Suburban | Rural |
| Solar farms would help local economy | ≈40% | ≈36% | ≈26% |
| Wind projects are visually intrusive | ≈30% | ≈34% | ≈48% |
| Comfortable with local BESS facility | Mid–60s% | Low–60s% | Low–50s% |
Note: Values are approximate aggregates from multiple 2024–2025 polls and are provided for directional insight, not as precise point estimates.
From a development perspective, this divide means that the binding constraint on deployment is shifting from statute to social license, moving from formal policy support to local permission. County boards, township councils, Tribal governments, and community coalitions increasingly function as the real gatekeepers to large-scale energy infrastructure.
5. Political and Demographic Segmentation
Energy attitudes in the U.S. are strongly structured by political identity, age, education, and, to a lesser extent, race and gender. Several robust patterns recur across surveys:
Table 3. Illustrative Partisan Differences in Energy Preferences
| Question (2024–2025 framing) | Democrats / Lean Dem | Republicans / Lean Rep | Primary Source |
| Favor more solar farms | ≈90%+ | ≈60–65% | Pew 2024 |
| Favor more wind farms | ≈85–90% | ≈55–60% | Pew 2024 |
| U.S. should prioritize renewables over fossil fuels | ≈80–85% | ≈30–35% | Pew trend |
| Support more nuclear plants | Mid–50s% | Mid–60s% | Pew & Gallup |
| Support more natural gas expansion/R&D | Plurality mixed | Strong majority | ecoAmerica; AP-NORC |
Note: These values are simplified to highlight directional gaps. Exact percentages differ by question wording, survey mode, and field period.
6. Trends Over Time and 2026 Outlook
In the last decade, public trust in renewable energy has moved through three phases:
Falling renewable costs, rising climate concern, and relatively limited local experience with large-scale projects produced broad, bipartisan enthusiasm for wind and solar expansion.
Climate policy became more partisan; issues like EV mandates, gas stoves, and fossil fuel pipelines entered the culture-war arena, and more communities confronted the realities of having big projects nearby.
With anti-renewable rhetoric increasing on the Right, tax equity markets tightening, and high-profile project delays or cancellations, many rural communities have shifted from cautious optimism to guarded skepticism about clean energy promises.
Going into the new year, three external forces are likely to interact with these attitude baselines:
Changes in congressional control, evolving administrative rules, and potential litigation around major climate and energy provisions introduce uncertainty and risk to long-term project economics.
Even when formal policy remains supportive, sustained rhetorical attacks from elected officials and media outlets can turn renewable infrastructure into symbolic a battleground.
When projects are publicly delayed, downsized, or canceled because financing becomes uncertain, the reputational impact is local. Residents often interpret these events as broken promises, regardless of the underlying cause.
Table 4. 2026 Public Trust Outlook by Sector (Qualitative Forecast)
| Sector | National Support Trend | Local (Rural) Trust Trend | Key Risks | Key Opportunities |
| Solar | High but softening | Increasingly fragile | Canceled projects; perceived land-use overreach | Ag co-benefits; community solar; visible local revenue |
| Wind | High but politicized | Contentious in many regions | Viewshed and wildlife conflicts; partisan cues | Revenue-sharing; repowering existing sites; offshore in receptive markets |
| Nuclear | Rising | Cautious curiosity | Cost overruns; waste and safety anxieties | Advanced reactors; climate and reliability framing |
| BESS | Strong but uncertain | Case-by-case | Fire safety fears; misinformation | Resilience framing; first-responder partnerships; transparent safety design |
| Natural Gas | Increasingly polarized | Stable where jobs depend on it | Methane/climate pressure; stranded-asset risk | Blending with low-carbon gases; firming role alongside renewables |
In short, 2026 is likely to be a year in which national support remains broadly favorable to clean energy, but local trust becomes more volatile and more central to project outcomes.
7. Strategic Implications for Developers, Utilities, and Investors
The patterns described above translate into a specific, actionable agenda for organizations seeking to build or finance energy infrastructure in the United States:
Local trust now sits alongside engineering, interconnection, and tax-credit eligibility as a gating factor. Effective developers budget for sustained field presence, invest in local representation, and empower teams who can engage directly with landowners, Tribal governments, and community leaders over years, not months.
For many Democrats and younger voters, climate protection, environmental justice, and decarbonization are primary motivators. For many Republicans and rural residents, reliability, affordability, landowner rights, and tangible local benefits carry more weight. Thoughtful campaigns frame the same project through multiple, honest lenses, rather than pushing a single universal narrative.
Public anxiety about reliability is rising. Projects that explicitly explain how solar, wind, nuclear, storage, and natural gas work together to maintain reliability will enjoy more trust than those that emphasize climate benefits alone.
Overpromising benefits or timelines, or remaining opaque about uncertainties, can cause long-term damage if projects stall. Communities are more willing to accept risk when developers are transparent about what is known, what is contingent, and how decisions will be made as conditions change.
Given the speed with which narratives can shift, an annual — or even semiannual — “state of public trust” check at the national, state, and county level should be considered a best practice. This is especially important in counties hosting multiple overlapping projects or where prior projects have faltered.
In a world where infrastructure depends on social license, organizations that treat trust-building as a strategic asset will be the ones that can reliably move steel and capital in the decade ahead.
8. Conclusion
The future of renewable energy in the United States will not be determined by policy alone, nor will it be secured solely by capital, technology, or cost curves. As the recent opinion landscape makes clear, public trust has become the binding constraint in the communities that host the infrastructure of transition.
This trust is not a “nice-to-have.” It is a structural precondition for deployment. And it is no longer evenly distributed — the easy consensus is over. Projects must now navigate localized skepticism, partisan narratives, and the aftershocks of delayed or downsized developments.
In this new terrain, success will belong to those who treat trust-building, message calibration, and stakeholder intelligence as core competencies.
The Role of KAOH Media and Fieldwise Civic Engagement
Simply put, we have been built for this moment.
Across diverse geographies and stakeholder environments, KAOH Media and Fieldwise Civic Engagement have helped clients translate their vision into a community-aligned reality. Our teams specialize in what this report identifies as decisive:
As we enter 2026, a year facing rising energy demand, intensified scrutiny, and political re-alignment, organizations that integrate trust architecture into their core development model will be positioned not only to build more, but to build with consent, clarity, and staying power.
References
At KAOH, we believe that grassroots advocacy is as much about human connection as it is about policy. Few figures embody this balance better than Jane Goodall, whose decades of work have reshaped how the world understands not just chimpanzees, but also the power of empathy, patience, and trust in advocacy.
Her approach wasn’t rooted in confrontation or flash—it was about listening deeply, telling honest stories, and building credibility over time. That is exactly the model we apply to community engagement and permitting for clean energy and infrastructure projects.
KAOH’s mission continues to embody proven strategies from Jane Goodall’s life’s work into practical frameworks that guide our organization in decision and action. By doing so, we strengthen grassroots engagement, deepen advocacy, and increase project success.
Core Shared Principles
1. Lead with Credibility - Goodall earned respect not by lecturing, but by living in the field and documenting what she observed. Similarly, KAOH’s outreach efforts are grounded in real community experiences—authentic voices, not abstract positioning. Trust is built through honesty and presence.
2. Tell Relatable Stories - Goodall’s stories turned scientific observations into narratives the public could feel. At KAOH, we humanize projects and stakeholders by sharing personal examples, names, and vivid imagery—not just data. Stories move hearts where facts alone cannot.
3. Keep Messaging Simple, Back It with Depth - Goodall often distilled her findings into memorable truths. We do the same by creating a clear “north star” phrase for each project—something that communities remember easily—while keeping detailed data ready for policymakers and skeptics who want to dive deeper.
4. Persuade Through Inclusion, Not Confrontation - Rather than dividing, Goodall invited the world to care. KAOH uses that same principle by framing developers and communities as allies, united in shared outcomes like jobs, stewardship, and pride in local progress.
5. Build Scalable Networks - Goodall’s movement spread because she empowered others to carry the message. KAOH creates local ambassador groups and empowers communities to become co-advocates. This ensures that the impact lasts beyond any single field representative.
6. Consistency Over Time - Advocacy is not a one-off event. Goodall’s influence was built through patience and repetition. KAOH maintains a steady presence, reinforcing reliability at every stage of permitting and development. Communities value that consistency.
7. Model the Message - Goodall lived her values. At KAOH, we ensure our representatives’ actions match our words, demonstrating integrity and alignment with the values we promote. Consistency between message and behavior is the strongest advocacy tool.
8. Blend Rational + Emotional Appeals - Goodall combined scientific rigor with emotional resonance. KAOH does the same—pairing strong data (jobs, tax revenues, environmental benefits) with emotional framing (legacy, pride, stewardship). This dual approach reaches both hearts and minds.
Business Impact and Value KAOH Delivers
By embedding Goodall’s principles into our work, KAOH achieves:
Jane Goodall’s advocacy reminds us that change is not won by force, but by trust, empathy, and persistence. At KAOH, we’re honored to adapt her timeless principles to today’s most pressing challenges—ensuring clean energy projects succeed not just on paper, but in the hearts of the communities where they are built.
As a founder of a public affairs agency serving rural America and working at the intersection of energy, infrastructure, and technology, I’ve seen firsthand how policy narratives shape what gets built—and who benefits. Today, as we race toward a future dominated by artificial intelligence, America faces a pivotal crossroads. The decisions we make now about energy and infrastructure will determine whether we lead this next century—or lease it from others.
The Trump administration’s “Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan,” under Executive Order 14179, is bold in scope. It sets ambitious goals for domestic AI leadership across supercomputing, edge networks, data centers, semiconductors, and workforce development. But one critical element is missing from this visionary plan: energy.
AI is hungry. Its rise demands an unprecedented surge in power. As we electrify robotics, factories, cloud systems, and autonomous platforms, we must ask—where is all that electricity going to come from? If we don’t answer this question with clarity and resolve, the AI arms race will be powered by foreign energy, foreign minerals, and foreign supply chains.
Renewable energy isn’t just an environmental issue—it’s a strategic one. And it’s time for political leaders, especially those who’ve stood for American strength and self-reliance, to see it that way.
Too often, renewables are dismissed as part of a "green agenda." But the truth on the ground tells a different story—one of private enterprise, rural empowerment, and domestic manufacturing. Renewable energy is being built not by bloated bureaucracies but by private developers leveraging market-based incentives. These projects generate tax revenue for schools, fire departments, and emergency services. They provide life-changing income for farmers and ranchers through land leases. They drive demand for American-made steel, cement, and electrical supply chains.
And yet, many voices in Washington—some driven by legacy fossil fuel donors—have painted renewables as a threat. That’s a misread. The real threat is allowing adversarial nations to dominate the next era of energy, infrastructure, and digital systems while America clings to outdated paradigms.
As a country, we are not in a position to abandon fossil fuels overnight. But we do need to build a diversified, resilient, American-controlled energy grid. That means embracing renewables not as ideology, but as infrastructure. This conversation shouldn’t be framed as Left versus Right. It should be seen through the lens of national strength, technological leadership, and rural revitalization.
Here’s why renewables align with a pro-America, pro-growth platform:
If we are to lead in AI, we must lead in power. Without a clear, forward-facing energy doctrine that includes renewables, America risks being outpaced—technologically and geopolitically.
As someone who works with communities, companies, and coalitions across the country, I see the appetite for progress. What we need now is clarity of message and courage of leadership. We need voices who understand that embracing innovation doesn’t mean abandoning tradition—but evolving it to meet new realities.
Renewables, done the American way, aren’t a threat to national greatness. They’re fuel for it.
###
KAOH Media is a strategic public relations and public affairs firm that helps energy and infrastructure developers secure project approval and public support. Specializing in high-stakes, high-scrutiny environments, KAOH delivers targeted engagement, regulatory insight, and message disciplines with deep expertise in rural markets and controversial land use issues.