2026 Climate Week Findings
Narrative's NEXUS Pulse Climate Week Survey explored how registered voters feel about new energy development in their own communities — familiarity with emerging technologies, excitement versus fear, what would matter most in a local siting decision, and how much they care about America’s energy affordability, reliability, and dominance.
Bottom line: The industry’s biggest challenge is uncertainty. The advantage will go to companies that close the gap between investment and public understanding fastest. Familiarity, credibility, and trust are now strategic assets alongside capital, permits, and infrastructure. Educate early, lead with reliability, and establish credibility before it is needed.
Top Takeaways & Headlines
For voters, keeping the lights on matters as much as keeping the bills down. When asked to rank the importance of a series of energy-related terms, reliability and affordability are effectively tied as priorities (90% very/somewhat important vs. 92% very/somewhat important), and reliability-related concerns about inadequate infrastructure – including power outages, disruptions to medical services, and restrictions on power usage – reach a combined 47% concerning, compared with 29% for higher bills.
Private investment is outpacing public understanding, and that could pose a long-term business risk. More than half of voters are unfamiliar with long-duration storage (57%) and enhanced geothermal (52%); 44% are unfamiliar with advanced nuclear. That knowledge gap could become a barrier when proposed projects reach their communities, because familiarity tends to lead to greater local support.
Deeper Dive: Our Assessment
1. Reliability is rivaling affordability as a top priority,
and voters fear blackouts nearly as much as higher bills. When asked to choose the single most concerning consequence of inadequate infrastructure, 29% picked higher electricity bills. But when considered together, issues around reliability, such as more frequent outages (26%), disruptions to medical services (12%), and restrictions on power usage (9%), outweigh affordability.
As extreme heat strains the grid and we see more warnings about rising blackout risks, voters weigh keeping the lights on as heavily as keeping bills down, yet reliability gets a fraction of the political airtime that affordability does. This is the clearest open lane in the data. Companies should explain what a specific investment does for grid reliability and the timeline for achieving it.
What Voters Fear Most From Inadequate Infrastructure
Affordability vs. Reliability
2. Familiarity may be an early advantage for local development.
Voters are more receptive to energy technologies they recognize and understand. Solar is the most familiar (82% very/somewhat familiar) and is considered the least concerning nearby development (26%) when voters are asked how they would feel about specific types of energy projects being built in their neighborhood. Energy storage is one of the least familiar technologies (57%), and just 5% identify it as the least concerning development. The connection between greater familiarity and greater openness to development isn't limited to solar; the same pattern holds true for advanced nuclear energy.
While familiarity alone does not guarantee support, findings show the size of the education challenge and suggest that early narratives remain unsettled. Companies have an opportunity to define unfamiliar technologies before others do, using early local visibility to set the narratives, rather than rebut arguments voters may not yet hold.
3. Voters want independent proof, not economic promises alone.
When asked what would matter most in a community decision about a new project for newer energy technologies—such as enhanced geothermal energy or advanced nuclear energy—22% choose an independent safety and environmental review, matching the 22% who prioritize the effect on their utility bills. Another 21% focus on effects on local resources, including the water supply. Jobs and investment rank lower, at 14%, followed by community input at 11%.
Economic benefits alone are not enough to establish credibility and win local confidence. Companies should pair claims about costs, jobs, and investment with independent evidence addressing safety, environmental effects, and local benefits. The strongest case combines tangible benefits with proof that voters can examine for themselves.
4. “Energy dominance” is not resonating with voters,
when compared to affordability, reliability, security, and clean or renewable energy. But this messaging or persuasion problem could come down to familiarity: 62% say it’s very or somewhat important, the lowest result among the six attributes tested and well behind clean energy (85%) and renewable energy (84%). This pattern is even more evident when looking at intensity, where only 29% say energy dominance is ‘very’ important compared to the majority who say the other five attributes are ‘very’ important. But 17% have never heard the term or are unsure what it means, compared with just 3-6% for the other terms.
The phrase may carry weight with the administration and other policymakers, but broader public campaigns will need to explain what it means in practical terms. Connecting it to reliability, affordability, security, and local benefits can make the underlying proposition clearer and more relevant.
Energy Dominance vs. Other Energy Priorities
5. Almost half of voters are either making up their minds or open to both the benefits and risks of new energy projects.
Nearly one-third (31%) of voters are more excited than afraid about new energy projects in their communities, compared to 24% who are more afraid than excited. About one-third (32%) say they are equally excited and afraid, and 13% are unsure, indicating a significant opportunity for persuasion. The public is similarly divided over how quickly projects should move: 45% favor approval once existing safety and permitting standards are met, while 44% would wait until the long-term effects are fully understood.
Campaigns focused primarily on defeating opponents risk missing the larger opportunity: helping uncertain voters –or those with mixed feelings –become comfortable with a project. The data also points to a dual mandate. Voters want to see energy projects move forward, but they also need credible evidence that they are safe and beneficial.
Business IMPLICATIONS
The industry's biggest challenge is not merely opposition. It's uncertainty.
The deciding audience is the large share of voters who remain uncertain, conflicted, or unfamiliar with emerging energy technologies—not only committed supporters or opponents.
Three vulnerabilities emerge from the data.
- Communications is firmly a risk-management function. Public understanding is not keeping pace with investment, and perceptions often form before a project enters public debate.
Executive action: Move communications upstream into project development, permitting, and stakeholder risk planning. - Economic arguments are necessary—but insufficient. Voters weigh independent review, environmental impacts, utility bills, and local resource concerns as heavily as—or more heavily than—jobs and investment.
Executive action: Lead with proof before promises by pairing economic claims with independent validation and tangible evidence. - Reliability is an underused lead message. Reliability rivals affordability as a voter priority, yet affordability still dominates industry messaging.
Executive action: Make dependable, resilient power a primary argument.
The strategic opportunity
Familiarity drives openness. Communications should reduce uncertainty, build understanding before controversy, and define technologies before opponents do.
The advantage will go to companies that close the gap between investment and public understanding fastest. Familiarity, credibility, and trust are now strategic assets alongside capital, permits, and infrastructure. Educate early, lead with reliability, and establish credibility before it is needed.
Details & Methodology
- Sample: N=1,210 registered voters nationwide
- Field Dates: August 27, 2026 – September 1, 2026
- Methodology: Conducted online among a national sample of registered voters using non-probability sampling; recruited through an online sample exchange; demographic quotas on gender, age, race/ethnicity, region, urban/rural, party lean, income, education, and ideology to approximate the composition of registered voters; data-quality screens for duplicates, inattentive respondents, and speeders; weighted to registered voter benchmarks on gender, age, and race/ethnicity.
