10
Loading video...
By Amy Miller
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
America's energy conversation is stuck. We argue about generation sources, subsidies, and emissions targets. We rarely talk about the thing that determines whether any of it actually gets built: whether the people living near a project understand why it exists and what it delivers for them.
That gap has consequences. The United States is projected to set record highs for electricity consumption in 2026 and 2027, climbing from 4,195 TWh (Terawatt-hour) in 2025 to 4,288 TWh in 2026 and 4,356 TWh in 2027, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration via SXcoal. A TWh is a large-scale unit used to measure electrical generation or consumption, equivalent to one terawatt of power running for one hour.
Demand is rising. The infrastructure to meet it is not keeping pace.
Read More on Leadership Insights
The bottleneck is not technology. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, via Energy Markets & Planning, reported that as of the end of 2025, over 2,060 gigawatts (GW) of total generation and storage capacity were actively seeking connection to the grid.
Many of those projects will never be built. They are withdrawn, delayed, or stalled by a combination of grid constraints, permitting, and local opposition.
Community Engagement and Opposition
Some of that opposition is legitimate. Communities have real concerns about land use, environmental impact, and whether a project will benefit them or simply pass through. But not all opposition reflects the majority view. A public hearing where ten people shout the loudest does not tell you what a community actually thinks. It tells you who had the time and resources to show up.
The industry has not helped itself. For decades, developers treated community engagement as a box to tick after the project was designed and the permits were filed. They walked into towns with technical slides about powerlines, transformers and substations and assumed that explaining the engineering was the same as explaining the value. It is not.
People do not need to understand how a transmission line works. They need to understand what it means for their electricity bills, the electrical reliability, their property taxes, their local schools, and the jobs it might create.
...
That failure has a history. Some infrastructure was built in poorer communities and Indigenous lands without meaningful benefit flowing back. That legacy shapes how people respond to new projects today. It is not paranoia, it's memory.
Listening to Local Communities Should Be Part of the Process
What would a better approach look like? It would start earlier, before the project is finalized. It would treat listening as part of the process, not a public relations exercise. It would explain benefits in plain language: the construction jobs, the property tax revenue, the local purchasing, the reliability improvements.
And it would acknowledge that some concerns cannot be resolved with a fact sheet.
The stakes are not abstract. If the United States continues to let misinformation, distrust, and political disagreement dominate the conversation, the consequences will be felt beyond the energy sector. Projects will be delayed. Investment will move elsewhere.
Communities that depend on traditional energy industries, such as coal regions in West Virginia and northwest New Mexico, will be left behind without adequate transition planning. This can include providing jobs with equal benefits. Without this, much of the community will be left behind. Electricity reliability will suffer, and the next generation will inherit a system that was designed for a different era.
...
The alternative is achievable. If developers engage earlier, listen genuinely, and explain benefits in terms people can understand, opposition becomes more informed and less reflexive. If policymakers provide consistent long-term signals rather than shifting priorities with each administration, investment becomes more predictable.
If communities see tangible returns from projects in their backyards, they are more likely to support the next one.
This is not a call to convince everyone to agree with every project. It is a call to create an informed public that can participate in meaningful discussions about the country's energy future. That requires effort from industry, policymakers, environmental organizations, and communities themselves. It requires money, time, and a willingness to treat communication as infrastructure, not as an afterthought.
The energy transition will not be won by the best technology or the lowest-cost generation. It will be won by the countries and communities that understand what is being built, why it matters, and who benefits. America has the resources and the engineering. What it needs now is the conversation.
Amy Miller is a public affairs professional with more than 20 years of experience in stakeholder engagement, government relations, and communications planning, with extensive work in the energy and environmental sectors. All views expressed are the author's own.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines