Unknown

all righty all righty righty hello everyone this is volts for september 4th 2026 how to respond to disinformation about clean energy at scale i'm your host david roberts climate campaigners are extremely familiar with large-scale organized misinformation campaigns but in recent years misinformation about climate solutions specifically about clean energy has grown almost as ubiquitous anytime there's a blackout or a grid failure clean energy gets blamed anytime electricity rates go up clean energy gets blamed anytime a clean energy project is proposed community meetings and regulatory dockets are flooded with misleading health and safety claims an organization called good power is attempting to push back against this tide of slop it runs message testing and polling maintains a network of several thousand content creators it can deploy quickly to respond to events works to get ahead of anticipated fights before the opposition hardens and is building a tool to identify manufactured comments in permitting proceedings i have been extremely skeptical about messaging professionals throughout my career i can't tell you how many pitches i've turned down from people and organizations claiming to have found the magic message that changes minds my objection has always been the same messaging itself is a magic message that changes minds my objection has always been the same messaging itself is a magic message that changes minds my objection has always been the same messaging itself is a magic message that changes minds stringing the right words together my objection has always been the same messaging itself is a magic message that changes minds stringing the right words together is only half the battle the reason the right stringing the right words together is only half the battle the reason the right wing so often wins is not that it is only half the battle the reason the right wing so often wins is not that it has particularly clever messages wing so often wins is not that it has particularly clever messages indeed its messages are often quite indeed its messages are often quite indeed its messages are often quite crude and stupid crude and stupid crude and stupid but that it has a wide array of channels but that it has a wide array of channels but that it has a wide array of channels through which to distribute them through which to distribute them through which to distribute them an army of people willing to repeat them an army of people willing to repeat them an army of people willing to repeat them endlessly and above all endlessly and above all endlessly and above all money money money behind those messages behind those messages behind those messages the reason i'm excited to talk with good the reason i'm excited to talk with good the reason i'm excited to talk with good power ceo leah cuspa is that her power ceo leah cuspa is that her power ceo leah cuspa is that her organization doesn't just test messages organization doesn't just test messages organization doesn't just test messages in isolation it deploys them in real in isolation it deploys them in real in isolation it deploys them in real world situations and has gathered data world situations and has gathered data world situations and has gathered data on what works and what doesn't we are on what works and what doesn't we are on what works and what doesn't we are going to talk about the kind of messages going to talk about the kind of messages going to talk about the kind of messages that work the right timing that work the right timing that work the right timing for those messages and the best ways for those messages and the best ways for those messages and the best ways for local leaders to discern for local leaders to discern for local leaders to discern true public opinion from astroturf true public opinion from astroturf true public opinion from astroturf campaigns campaigns campaigns all right then with no further ado leah all right then with no further ado leah all right then with no further ado leah cuspa welcome to volts thank you so much cuspa welcome to volts thank you so much cuspa welcome to volts thank you so much for coming for coming for coming dave thanks for having me happy to be dave thanks for having me happy to be dave thanks for having me happy to be here i'm excited to get into this here i'm excited to get into this here i'm excited to get into this let's start here this is all about let's start here this is all about let's start here this is all about disinformation disinformation disinformation misinformation disinformation maybe just misinformation disinformation maybe just disinformation disinformation maybe just talk a little bit about that what do we talk a little bit about that what do we talk a little bit about that what do we mean when we talk about that and what mean when we talk about that and what mean when we talk about that and what kinds of disinformation are we talking kinds of disinformation are we talking kinds of disinformation are we talking about about about from whom in what from whom in what from whom in what venues may you give us a few examples of venues may you give us a few examples of venues may you give us a few examples of the kinds of things you're going after the kinds of things you're going after the kinds of things you're going after yeah absolutely i mean i think there's a yeah absolutely i mean i think there's a yeah absolutely i mean i think there's a pretty big body of pretty big body of pretty big body of peer-reviewed research now that shows peer-reviewed research now that shows peer-reviewed research now that shows that there's a lot of that there's a lot of that there's a lot of false and exaggerated claims about wind false and exaggerated claims about wind false and exaggerated claims about wind about solar increasingly about battery about solar increasingly about battery about solar increasingly about battery energy storage energy storage energy storage and there's actually even new and there's actually even new and there's actually even new experimental evidence as recent as experimental evidence as recent as experimental evidence as recent as 2026 actually showing like the behavioral 2026 actually showing like the behavioral 2026 actually showing like the behavioral impacts right it's one thing to impacts right it's one thing to impacts right it's one thing to get people to not like something it's get people to not like something it's get people to not like something it's another for them actually another for them actually another for them actually to be informed so much and inspired so to be informed so much and inspired so to be informed so much and inspired so much that they would want to join much that they would want to join much that they would want to join opposition based on that information so opposition based on that information so opposition based on that information so we focus on the dirty dozen i think the we focus on the dirty dozen i think the we focus on the dirty dozen i think the sabin center says there's 33 different sabin center says there's 33 different sabin center says there's 33 different meta narratives out there attacking meta narratives out there attacking meta narratives out there attacking renewables that are false renewables that are false renewables that are false we focus on about a dozen of the most we focus on about a dozen of the most we focus on about a dozen of the most pervasive ones out there narratives pervasive ones out there narratives pervasive ones out there narratives specifically like give me a couple of specifically like give me a couple of specifically like give me a couple of examples examples examples yeah you've heard these probably the one yeah you've heard these probably the one yeah you've heard these probably the one as old as time is it's not reliable as old as time is it's not reliable as old as time is it's not reliable right when the sun stops shining the right when the sun stops shining the right when the sun stops shining the wind stops blowing you don't have power wind stops blowing you don't have power wind stops blowing you don't have power therefore the technology is not good therefore the technology is not good therefore the technology is not good china makes solar panels and wood china makes solar panels and wood china makes solar panels and wood term bites therefore will be reliant on term bites therefore will be reliant on term bites therefore will be reliant on china china china the most pervasive one right now is that the most pervasive one right now is that the most pervasive one right now is that solar wind and batteries threaten prime solar wind and batteries threaten prime solar wind and batteries threaten prime u.s farmland that farming and u.s farmland that farming and u.s farmland that farming and renewables can't go together therefore renewables can't go together therefore renewables can't go together therefore we should all be freaked out and we should all be freaked out and we should all be freaked out and not to jump ahead a little bit but i'm not to jump ahead a little bit but i'm not to jump ahead a little bit but i'm curious curious curious who who who is disseminating those messages to what is disseminating those messages to what is disseminating those messages to what extent extent extent i guess i'm asking is that stuff i guess i'm asking is that stuff i guess i'm asking is that stuff peer-to-peer you know sort of fox tells peer-to-peer you know sort of fox tells peer-to-peer you know sort of fox tells it to the right-wing audience and then it to the right-wing audience and then it to the right-wing audience and then the right-wing audience tells it to one the right-wing audience tells it to one the right-wing audience tells it to one another another another versus more sort of coordinated versus more sort of coordinated versus more sort of coordinated deliberate deliberate deliberate campaigns funded campaigns deliberately campaigns funded campaigns deliberately campaigns deliberately spreading this stuff do you know spreading this stuff do you know spreading this stuff do you know what i mean what i mean what i mean yeah i mean i think the best piece of yeah i mean i think the best piece of yeah i mean i think the best piece of research i've seen is from robert brule research i've seen is from robert brule research i've seen is from robert brule and he has a paper where he talks about and he has a paper where he talks about and he has a paper where he talks about this highly organized movement it's this highly organized movement it's this highly organized movement it's called the u.s counter movement opposing called the u.s counter movement opposing called the u.s counter movement opposing climate action the climate change climate action the climate change climate action the climate change counter movement and it's really both of counter movement and it's really both of those things simultaneously it's those things simultaneously it's those things simultaneously it's networks of conservative foundations and networks of conservative foundations and networks of conservative foundations and think tanks and corporations and trade think tanks and corporations and trade think tanks and corporations and trade associations and then all these advocacy associations and then all these advocacy associations and then all these advocacy groups that are in the field they're all groups that are in the field they're all groups that are in the field they're all intricately networked together intricately networked together intricately networked together really work together as a unit and it's really work together as a unit and it's really work together as a unit and it's well-funded and you know the money is well-funded and you know the money is well-funded and you know the money is really hard to follow because it's a lot really hard to follow because it's a lot of dark money passed through these of dark money passed through these of dark money passed through these entities but essentially fossil fuel entities but essentially fossil fuel entities but essentially fossil fuel interests interests interests so then let's talk about good power last so then let's talk about good power last so then let's talk about good power last year you've been involved in this year you've been involved in this year you've been involved in this organization for 16 years now for a organization for 16 years now for a organization for 16 years now for a while been been through a couple of while been been through a couple of while been been through a couple of rebrands couple of reorgs rebrands couple of reorgs rebrands couple of reorgs last year you renamed yourself from last year you renamed yourself from last year you renamed yourself from action for the climate emergency it and then two like what does good it and then two like what does good it and then two like what does good power consist in now i've read your power consist in now i've read your power consist in now i've read your decks there's a lot of pieces of this decks there's a lot of pieces of this decks there's a lot of pieces of this puzzle there's research and the puzzle there's research and the puzzle there's research and the influencers and this and that so maybe influencers and this and that so maybe influencers and this and that so maybe just tell us why the rebrand and then just tell us why the rebrand and then just tell us why the rebrand and then what all are you doing now what are the what all are you doing now what are the what all are you doing now what are the main divisions main divisions main divisions yeah so good power i've been at the yeah so good power i've been at the yeah so good power i've been at the organization i just had my organization i just had my organization i just had my 17-year anniversary and i mean 17-year anniversary and i mean 17-year anniversary and i mean historically when we were ace and now historically when we were ace and now historically when we were ace and now good power we've worked with audiences good power we've worked with audiences good power we've worked with audiences across the ideological spectrum for a across the ideological spectrum for a across the ideological spectrum for a long time long time long time and there was really two big reasons for and there was really two big reasons for and there was really two big reasons for the rebrand one the rebrand one the rebrand one we wanted a bigger messaging tent it we wanted a bigger messaging tent it we wanted a bigger messaging tent it turns out the words action and climate turns out the words action and climate turns out the words action and climate and emergency can be polarizing in some and emergency can be polarizing in some and emergency can be polarizing in some places places places and then second there was like really a and then second there was like really a and then second there was like really a pragmatic or like logistical reason pragmatic or like logistical reason pragmatic or like logistical reason we serve a lot of media we do a lot of we serve a lot of media we do a lot of we serve a lot of media we do a lot of strategic communications about 300 strategic communications about 300 strategic communications about 300 million impressions we served just last million impressions we served just last million impressions we served just last year year year you know the algorithms right play this you know the algorithms right play this you know the algorithms right play this goalie where they only will serve goalie where they only will serve goalie where they only will serve content based on you know they want to content based on you know they want to content based on you know they want to keep people on their platforms they want keep people on their platforms they want keep people on their platforms they want to keep people happy and scrolling and to keep people happy and scrolling and to keep people happy and scrolling and it's really difficult to sort of trick it's really difficult to sort of trick it's really difficult to sort of trick those algorithms those algorithms those algorithms with words like climate and action and with words like climate and action and with words like climate and action and emergency in your name so how do we emergency in your name so how do we emergency in your name so how do we create a bigger tent for more people to create a bigger tent for more people to create a bigger tent for more people to get under across the ideological get under across the ideological get under across the ideological spectrum and then also how do we be able spectrum and then also how do we be able spectrum and then also how do we be able to reach audiences with trusted to reach audiences with trusted to reach audiences with trusted messengers whether they're farmers and messengers whether they're farmers and messengers whether they're farmers and landowners or neighbors of projects etc landowners or neighbors of projects etc landowners or neighbors of projects etc so essentially our mission is all around so essentially our mission is all around so essentially our mission is all around accelerating decarbonization like how do accelerating decarbonization like how do accelerating decarbonization like how do we get to that end more quickly and if we get to that end more quickly and if we get to that end more quickly and if time is our greatest enemy we want to time is our greatest enemy we want to time is our greatest enemy we want to get there more quickly well what's get there more quickly well what's get there more quickly well what's standing in our way and how do we remove standing in our way and how do we remove standing in our way and how do we remove those roadblocks and have a more those roadblocks and have a more those roadblocks and have a more frictionless pathway to that goal frictionless pathway to that goal frictionless pathway to that goal this mirrors i think a larger pivot in this mirrors i think a larger pivot in this mirrors i think a larger pivot in a lot of climate groups a lot of the a lot of climate groups a lot of the a lot of climate groups a lot of the climate movement this sort of pivot to climate movement this sort of pivot to climate movement this sort of pivot to yeah we're basically a specialized yeah we're basically a specialized yeah we're basically a specialized content studio and marketing agency content studio and marketing agency content studio and marketing agency for clean energy and climate solutions for clean energy and climate solutions for clean energy and climate solutions we're a political and policy campaigning we're a political and policy campaigning we're a political and policy campaigning shop and we're an empirical research lab shop and we're an empirical research lab shop and we're an empirical research lab sort of all in one sort of all in one sort of all in one and you have this and you have this and you have this network of creators it says across network of creators it says across network of creators it says across non-political verticals non-political verticals non-political verticals that is the piece that is most that is the piece that is most that is the piece that is most fascinating to me fascinating to me fascinating to me who are these people are these like who are these people are these like who are these people are these like youtubers tiktokers are they youtubers tiktokers are they youtubers tiktokers are they farmers that you go out and find like farmers that you go out and find like farmers that you go out and find like who are the influencers who are the who are the influencers who are the who are the influencers who are the people who are ultimately carrying the people who are ultimately carrying the people who are ultimately carrying the message at the end of the pipeline message at the end of the pipeline message at the end of the pipeline yeah absolutely i think part of the yeah absolutely i think part of the yeah absolutely i think part of the rebrand right it's not about good rebrand right it's not about good rebrand right it's not about good powers brand or what we want to say and powers brand or what we want to say and powers brand or what we want to say and i think one of the plagues of either i think one of the plagues of either i think one of the plagues of either climate clean energy communications is climate clean energy communications is climate clean energy communications is like we want to say what we want to say like we want to say what we want to say like we want to say what we want to say and what we think will work and how and what we think will work and how and what we think will work and how about we just think about this about we just think about this about we just think about this differently and get out of the way differently and get out of the way differently and get out of the way and get the people in the places dealing and get the people in the places dealing and get the people in the places dealing with the thing and deciding if they want with the thing and deciding if they want with the thing and deciding if they want utility scale solar or battery storage utility scale solar or battery storage utility scale solar or battery storage in their town why don't we just go talk in their town why don't we just go talk in their town why don't we just go talk to those people who already have these to those people who already have these to those people who already have these technologies so i think part of our technologies so i think part of our technologies so i think part of our investment in sort of credible messenger investment in sort of credible messenger investment in sort of credible messenger networks whether they're influencers or networks whether they're influencers or networks whether they're influencers or subjects of our many many documentary subjects of our many many documentary subjects of our many many documentary films that we make is just going into films that we make is just going into films that we make is just going into communities and talking to people and i communities and talking to people and i communities and talking to people and i think the second thing is people don't think the second thing is people don't think the second thing is people don't go to the internet to be bored to death go to the internet to be bored to death go to the internet to be bored to death by all of these groups that care about by all of these groups that care about by all of these groups that care about decarbonization and clean energy and decarbonization and clean energy and decarbonization and clean energy and climate right they go to the internet to climate right they go to the internet to climate right they go to the internet to be entertained they go for food fashion be entertained they go for food fashion do we go where they already are? And how do we sort of inject our messages into culture? It's really about getting into the cultural spaces where you're going to find audiences that are unreachable in other parts of the internet. Yeah, but how do you do that? So you find someone who's got an audience who maybe is talking about cars or sports or whatever, and you would like them to maybe sprinkle a little pro-clean energy messaging in there amidst that. How do you do that? Are you paying these people? Are you approaching them? Are you signing contracts with them? Are you just trying to convince them? What does the relationship look like? We have all sorts of models. So let's say we have a, this is one of my favorite stories. I live in the state of Wisconsin and we do a lot of storytelling all over the country around communities that are quite satisfied with utility scale, renewable energy infrastructure. And there's this farmer named Shelly. She's in her seventies. She lives in Southwestern Wisconsin. She's had wind on her land for about 20 years. She agreed to have us on her farm and to film her over a three-day period and tell her story, how these turbines put her kids through college, how it's just part of the natural landscape. She farms all of the other acres around these turbines. So she's still a farmer. We don't have to pay people like Shelly, right? Just like you don't have to pay people to go on Reddit and talk about how fun it is to drive their Ford Lightning or whatever EV they're driving, right? So that's unpaid documentary style filmmaking that we do. And then on the other side of the spectrum, we work with influencers that are monetizing their social media handles. So we might work with a car bro, right? And gosh, oil prices go through the roof because of a far off war in Iran. And people are like, wow, I'm happy to pay five, six dollar gas. So we partner with a car bro who has a huge car audience. And we're like, yo, I'm really sick of paying these prices. What relief is there? Oh, have you heard about electric vehicles? Actually over a five-year period, they're cheaper than a car. So we're like, oh, I'm really sick of paying for now to maintain and to drive than a gas powered vehicle. Maybe you should include this for your household in sort of your future purchasing plans for your next vehicle. So when we think about these influencers, they're specifically not clean energy influencers to the extent such a thing even exists. I don't even know if I don't even know there are such things in the world, but like these are influencers in other areas that you are approaching and making deals with. And you're sort of getting some of your messaging in there. The way you can think about that, I would have no interest in spending a penny on an audience that follows a clean energy influencer, right? That's preaching to the choir. I want to find the people who are really resistant. I want to find conservative audiences who see EVs as a lefty lid thing to do and not as like pragmatic cost savings thing. So how do I find these audiences that don't have the right information? I don't want to serve any media to people who are adopting EVs just fine or are already big supporters of clean energy. So curious about this, like how open is that door that you're pushing on? Do you find a lot of people willing to do this? Is this a fertile thing? Is it easy to find people and get these messages out into these channels? I mean, I imagine a lot of these influencers kind of have opinions of their own or thoughts of their own or, you know, what they call audience capture. My audience wouldn't like that. Like if I get political, my audience wouldn't like it. Just like how much resistance are you finding or how easy is it to do this work? Yeah, we essentially have an internal creator marketing agency. About six years ago, we got sort of exhausted working with all these influencer agencies and having to basically just teach them all the messaging. And it was just really difficult. So we said, you know what, we can do this ourselves. Why don't we just slide into a bunch of people's DMs and see if they want to work with us. And it turned out that worked and it was really scalable. And then we built a really world-class team around that vertical. And now, you know, it's really, it's a mutual relationship. So there's some alignment. There on our worldview around the energy transition or electric vehicles or other decarbonized technologies at whatever level of scale. And so it's a mutual agreement that we want to work together. And we basically create campaigns together. We brief things together. And some of our creators have been working with us for five plus years. So there's a real trusted relationship there. Interesting. And one thing I'm curious about is I know media is shifting and changing, obviously. And like to a great extent, especially among young people, the big networks, the big sort of media channels that their parents and grandparents went to are not as big of a deal for them, but they're still a pretty big deal. Like you're going up against, in a lot of these cases, talk radio, Fox news, like big organized, established, wealthy media channels. And you're kind of doing a lot of the work and you're kind of doing a lot of the work and you're kind of doing a lot of the work and you're kind of doing a lot doing it with this ragtag army of influencers. How do you not just get drowned out? Like, do you feel you can make yourself heard? If you know, the eye of Sauron really turns to like an Ohio battle over a proposed solar field or whatever. Like if the right-wing media machine really turns its attention to that, do you have enough power to be heard amidst that kind of torrent? I mean, let's be real though. We're not just using creator marketing, right? That's one possible tactic of like a layered campaign. And it depends on the goal of the campaign and the media diet of where we're running that campaign. So if we're running a campaign, let's say in rural Northeast Oklahoma around a utility scale wind project. So what do the people in that community consume in terms of their media? There may be transit or out-of-home traffic. There may be transit or out-of-home advertising, a.k.a. billboards. We do a ton of phone banking. We're organizers and campaigners at heart at Good Power. So we're going to call people and understand what people think about these technologies. They're very favorable of wind in this part of Oklahoma because that's the landscape and it's invested tons in schools. And then we do storytelling and find subjects. We filmed a Republican school superintendent that talked about the benefits to schools. And we talked to a county commissioner and we talked to neighbors of these projects and landowners leasing land. So it's much more than just finding credible messengers. I think the point of credible messengers, though, to your opening statement is the message is absolutely worthless. Actually, the message is the messenger. And we just need to evangelize that to anybody working on any campaign anywhere. Nobody trusts the Internet. Nobody cares what brands have to say. Empower people to speak for themselves. You know, talk to the farmers, talk to the school superintendents, talk to the local community. And I would imagine part of your goal, one of the ways that the right wing pulls off its messaging victories is that they get people talking to one another about it. You know what I mean? They sort of end up deputizing these end users as kind of messengers. And there's this enormous peer to peer effect. Is that something you're trying to get going and tracking it all? Like you can't do all the messaging yourself. Ultimately, you need to convince some people that are going to go out and carry your message for you. Is that a big piece of the puzzle? Yeah, I would say in our campaign work, we call these amplifiers, but people who maybe don't have a huge social following of their own, but they're huge supporters of the work and, you know, the particular goal of the campaign. So they want to weigh in. So maybe they'll comment, maybe they'll reshare, maybe they'll amplify the content in some way. Every time we do that, algorithmically, the content becomes more viable. It becomes more exciting to the social population. And so I think that's a big piece of the puzzle. So the algorithm will help serve that content up to more people, reach new audiences, make it more quote unquote viral. So there's really a way of doing that. And I would say lots of campaigners have really understood the power of amplification networks. At GoodPower, we have about 1.2 million people in the GoodPower Action Network. So this is an opted in list of mobile and email subscribers that we often send opportunities to amplify out to them. So yes, that is something we use. Interesting. Well, let's talk about like a test case. Let's talk about there's this winter storm fern in January. And this was a sort of one of your sort of arms or divisions is you look for events that happen and then go respond. We all know, we've all seen at this point, like any time something happens, something pops up, a big heat wave or a blackout or something like the anti clean energy messaging swarms instantly around that. And so you are trying to send a counter swarm, I guess you would say. Just walk us through like what that looked like around winter storm fern. You heard about the storm. What did that trigger? What series of sort of actions did that trigger? Okay, full disclosure, we are huge tech nerds over here at GoodPower. So we build original products that don't exist. And we use AI enabled tools increasingly to solve problems humans just can't or are too big, right? We need agents and bots to do it. So this is one of those great examples. We have a rapid response program. So in order to do rapid response, first of all, understanding why, right? Whoever gets there first, people are scrolling, they ingest the headline, sometimes they don't even click on the headline and then they move on. So there really is a premium on can you get your message out first? before the public understanding hardens around the fake news or the disinformation, right? So premium on speed, how could we possibly do that? Well, we built, it's called an agentic orchestration, but a bunch of agents that we trained every single night, they do this at 4 a.m. when we're sleeping and deliver this to our inbox in the morning. They're looking at the news cycle. They're looking at what disinformation clusters around renewables and energy are moving that day. They're looking at the biggest social media posts out there that are relevant to that. And they're also looking at the biggest news stories. We get that served up at 6 a.m. by the time we're in our desks in the morning. We have a rapid response team that looks at that and they say, okay, whoa, winter storm fern, it's in the forecast. This is going to be huge. Now that's a great example because it actually, we don't have to do something that day. It's in the forecast. So it's coming up. You know, there's a lead time with extreme weather often, which is awesome. So it gives us more time, but we do have the capability to get lots of creators a brief like that day and get content online immediately. And that's important. Because over the last roughly 20 years I've been doing this work, we have like never gotten better at rapid response. We're like a day late and a dollar short. It's all analog. We're just not good at it. So we need to use these new 21st century technology tools to do it. So essentially with fern, it was awesome because it was a pre-bunking campaign. We actually got out before the storm hit and, you know, power went out in 21 states or something like that. And people were upset and immediately you saw the scapegoating of renewables. Our campaign, we basically had a bunch of creators brief. We had a few dozen go live. We generated millions of views on that content, basically saying, hey, if your power goes out, don't believe what you're saying. It's not renewables. It's all these other things, literally frozen coal and gas supply. It's interregional transmission. It's the broken grid. Even FERC says that that is the case, our own government. So in case you see disinformation, now you know. And that's sort of a methodology we use that's pretty empirically founded, where you can pre-bunk things before disinformation reaches someone. You basically inoculate them or make them impervious to it. Yeah, we're going to get back to that in a minute, the pre-bunking stuff. So, you know, you have this system that alerts you to events. You've got a rapid response team that says, OK, this event is coming up. Let's send messages to our influencers. Let's record some documentary content. Let's do all various things. Get that in front of the people who are going to be affected by the storm. And then when the storm hits, to some extent, you have a counterplay already on the ground. That's the idea. That's right. And like since winter storm for and that was the last weekend in January, I remember it was my birthday and I was in upstate New York and it was very snowy. And since then, we've gotten over 20 sort of rapid response. We call them reps. But different times we've mobilized this rapid response community. And we've served like almost 70 million impressions at this point in these high attention moments that have risen to the level. Like another example, Trump was on stage at Davos and said it costs a thousand dollars every time a wind turbine turns. We deployed around that. Oil prices, record high, the Iran war. We've done a lot of stuff around volatility and that, you know, Americans are sick of importing that volatility into their energy bills and to the gas pump. So there's been a lot of stuff since then. And we're starting to get better and better at this and reach more and more scale each time we deploy. Then my core questions, which is, you know, you have these deployments. How do you test their effectiveness? How do you measure your own effectiveness? Because in a sense, I know that the big number of impressions is in a sense the number that sounds biggest and it's kind of the easiest to measure. But we don't really know whether impressions matter or do anything. Like that's a middle point in the causal chain. What we want are people behaving differently or doing different things or believing different things at the end of all this. So how do you measure the effectiveness of a campaign? What is the methodology? Yeah. So we have an in-house research lab called the Good Data Lab. It's run by Dr. Sonia Sashdeva. She has her Ph.D. in computational research and she has a team of Ph.D. level social scientists that study this stuff all day, every day. And we started this lab four years ago. And we're we've completed 130 empirical studies, everything from like deep focus groups with county commissioners to tons of like message tests and randomized control trials. So we study the effects. What are the persuasion effects? I'm much less concerned or interested in how people feel and think because we have like the feeling and thinking gap to action. I'm much more interested lower down into the funnel. Like how does this change behavior? Are there proxies that say, oh, wait, I wasn't supportive, but if I were in a real life environment, I would be. And then actually going all the way down the funnel and seeing if that person actually did the thing they said they wanted to do. So we study all levels of the funnel from just education and awareness to changing someone's mind to proxies for action and then actual action. Like, for instance, I would imagine that there are you call these spark events, these things that come up you didn't respond to. I would imagine that there are lots and lots of spark events, probably more than you can respond to. So do you ever use one that you don't respond to as kind of a control group? You need control groups in these experiments to truly get a sense of your effectiveness. Like what would you need to counterfactual? What it would have been like had we not responded? Are you able to do that? And I wondered the same thing about your ads. You know, you serve a lot of ads. Do you ever just sort of leave a zip code out and make it a control group so that you can compare what happened where there were ads with what happened where there weren't? Yeah. So we do that all the time. One of my favorite studies from Rapid Response that we did, and this was no affiliation with Senator Schatz, but what we did is we saw that Senator Brian Schatz gave a speech on the Senate floor. He was talking about energy bills and reliability. And we pick that up in this daily signal that we get in our inbox that I was describing to you. And we said, hey, this is really interesting. Here we have, you know, a prominent elected official talking about this all of government approach of the Trump administration to stop renewables and connecting that to rising bills for Americans. This is really interesting. It's a big news story. How do we get this out to people? So we had our creators clip it up. We held out a control group that didn't see the intervention. I think they saw an Airbnb ad or a Morton Salt ad or something. But we had a statistically significant result that showed a huge decrease in favorability for Republicans and how they handle energy bills. It was an 11 point decrease. We saw a 4% increase for Democrats for talking about these issues and acknowledging that we need every electron we need, you know, the cheapest, fastest to power electron right now is solar and storage and wind. So, you know, tests like that, I think we do pretty routinely just to know, okay, well, what would happen if we didn't do anything versus this treatment universe that does get exposure to the content? And how does this change how they think and how they act? Interesting. Yeah. So you mentioned earlier, this work on inoculations. Sander van der Linden, I think, is the guy who's sort of become famous with work on this, sometimes called pre-budding. The idea is that if you can get to people before the misinformation reaches them and get good info in their heads, that is more, tends to be more effective than coming in afterward and trying to change their mind. I'm sort of curious how this plays out for you, though, because most of these, I mean, most of these things are almost by definition, you're responding. These spark response things are responses to things that have already happened. So what's an example of somewhere where you're using this inoculation idea or using this inoculation effect? Hey there, everybody. Don't worry. I'm not going to tell you about a new mattress or push a credit card on you. This isn't an ad. There are no ads on volts. It is supported entirely by listeners like you. If you'll indulge me for a second, I'd like to ask for your support. I started volts because we're all surrounded by depressing news about climate change and misinformation about clean energy. And it's never been more important to share the stories of the real people on the ground doing the real work of transition and all the ingenuity and courage and public spirit they are bringing to it. People are hungry to hear these stories, to learn from and find inspiration. In them. I've heard from people who change majors or careers after hearing episodes of volts, people using it in classrooms and community groups, even state legislators who have passed bills inspired by specific episodes. Sharing these stories matters. It makes a difference. If you have found value in it and want to help me continue doing it, I hope you will join the community of paid subscribers at volts dot WTF. It's about the cost of a cup of coffee a month. If you don't like subscriptions, you can make a one-time contribution, leave a review on Apple or Spotify, or just tell a friend about volts. I am grateful for any and all support. If you're already a paid subscriber, thank you. And now back to the show. What's an example of somewhere where you're using this inoculation idea or using this inoculation effect? Yeah. Another term for that is basically just getting there first before the disinformation even is on the radar of the audience. So we call this ground softening. Any good campaigner listening? will understand what that means. It's like, before you go knock on a door and talk to somebody, you should probably put a door hanger, you should probably give them a phone call or a text, maybe send them a mailer. We got to soften the field before we go have a conversation and make an ask to a voter to do something, right? So in the context of a community considering a huge new proposal for utility-scale solar paired with storage, let's say, what if we went out a year before that project was announced, we started a low level of showing stories of other nearby counties or states that already have this infrastructure and are really happy with it, the economic benefits they got, right? And we're not just guessing here, we know this works because we did a longitudinal experiment for three months where we exposed 80 counties and held out another 80 counties in a control. And we looked at things like, what are the perceptions around building more solar and wind and batteries? What was the baseline? of support before this exposure? And after three months, what was it? Are people raising their hands saying, wait, now that I know I would support and host utility-scale renewables in my town, we saw an 11-point gain over that three-month exposure. We exposed them to 22 different pieces of content, stories, real stories from real rural conservative people who already have these technologies in their towns. And then the coolest thing we did is we wanted to show the world like, hey, Marketing 101, when you turn off the ads, it decays. Just like when Coca-Cola turns off their ads, people go buy Pepsi and Gatorade or whatever else, right? You got to stay in people's feeds. Otherwise, the other noise of the internet, the disinformation, et cetera, seeps in and it gets undone. I mean, that's something every marketer understands. So we really need to have an always-on low level. And we know just the precise amount of impressions that we need to sprinkle to make sure people really understand they're hearing from people they trust that are in their affinity group. Yeah. You know, not what Good Power is saying, not what some other brand is saying. What is my neighbor saying about this that already has it, right? It's just like TripAdvisor. Have you ever booked a hotel without looking at the Google reviews? No. You want to hear from people that have lived it. It's the best thing in our experience that has worked. And we have a lot of empirical evidence that shows that it works. Interesting. Yeah. You really anticipated my next question, which is one of the sort of uncomfortable results of the research on inoculation is that the effects fade. Pretty quickly. Like once you stop, the effects fade. I think this has been true of all. It's been one of my real complaints about a lot of work and hype on messaging that I've been exposed to over the last 20 some years, which is like, if you get people in a little conference room and expose them to messages and then ask them right afterward, they'll be like, yeah, yeah. You know, like you change their minds, but how long does that last? Does it change their mind in an enduring way? Right. My big question is if you need to keep it up to maintain that level of support. Doesn't that mean that like every campaign you launch ends up being a quasi permanent campaign? Like how can you afford to do that? Like to be sort of always on in these communities, do you have to be sort of always on everywhere you go? Or if you stop, do things just fade and go back to normal? Yeah, I think it's a really important. Question. And I think for us, right, we do a lot of campaigning where all the cheap, viable land is for wind, solar and storage. Those are very rural places. They're conservative. They're not population dense. So that longitudinal experiment in those 80 counties, right, that's not actually a ton of people. So when you look at we currently have about 300 local siting campaigns running at the project level. And what these are, I mean, when you look at the population density, sometimes it's a few thousand people, right? You're hard pressed to spend what, five grand on media. These are not expensive places, at least from our perspective in the local siting place. Now you multiply that by every month, every year times the amount of counties. I mean, it can add up. But for our campaign work, this isn't something that is necessarily, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not cheap, but we think it's worth it. And earlier you can start, you know, before the disinformation or the Facebook group, right, that is often housing a lot of opposition. Before that forms, your best bet is early intervention. A win isn't just who's supporting and calling the county commission or submitting a public comment or showing up. It's who stays home. It's about flattening the curve, you know, to quote Fauci, how do we flatten the curve of opposition? I mean, that's really like 75 percent of the battle. Yeah. Draining some of the intensity of the opposition is really an underrepresented. So, well, let's talk about that. Let's talk about the action at the end of the day. I mean, I think it's a really good question. I think it's a really good question. So you're not just trying to change minds. You're trying to change people's behavior. There's a Kansas case study where you talk about sort of the action that resulted at the end of your intervention. Talk us through that a little bit. Yeah, definitely. So we run hundreds of these local project level siting campaigns, and generally they have a few different phases. First, research. What does the community feel? And, you know, when's the last time they elected a Republican or a Democrat, right? What's the sentiment? Oftentimes these are tied to party lines, so we want to know how the community feels. Second, we do our ground softening. So all of the stories, hundreds at this point, all of the credible messengers that already have these technologies, how do we expose communities thinking about these technologies and hosting these projects? How do we expose them to credible messengers? And then finally, like the bottom of the funnel, how do we get them to submit public comments on an official open docket? How do we get them to show up in person, either at a community meeting or in a fair? How do we get them to show up in person, either at a community meeting or an official open docket? How do we get them to show up in person, either at a community meeting or an official hearing to give testimony, right? How do we get them to bring friends and reach out to loved ones, family, neighbors? Yes. And I think people who are not involved in this stuff underestimate the difficulty of getting people off the couch to do anything on anything about anything or talk to anybody on Madison Avenue, advertising products or anything. Getting people to go from positive sentiment to action is a huge push. Yeah. And let's just talk about that funnel. I mean, because you said, OK, well, is that really a reflection? The total impressions we've served lifetime across our 300 siting campaigns in 40 states, about 40 million impressions. There's about 53 gigawatts of clean energy tied up in these campaigns. But how many comments from those impressions? We've gotten 2,500 positive public comments. So now, you know, you can do the math. How many impressions does it take top of the funnel to bring people to the top of the funnel? How many impressions does it take to bring people to the top of the funnel? How many people through? Right. We did 76,000 phone calls to people. We got 2,500 comments and we got about 600 people in person to mobilize and show up and RSVP and show up for hearings to give official testimony. So the marketing funnel is clear. We know how many people we have to reach. And there is a math problem here that we can do to really understand the ongoing cost. These campaigns also it doesn't end when a final permit is issued and that project goes to construction. Right. People will forget what then they have to look at the thing. I'm from a you know, I grew up around a lot of farmland. It's a very intense wind area where I grew up in northeastern Wisconsin. Lots of farms. And essentially, I mean, your landscape changes. You've got to look at this stuff when you wake up and when you're driving down the road. So you have to continue after the project is operational and remind the community, oh, yes, but wait, the tradeoff here is we got a new school. We doubled our tax base. We have long term leases. We sponsored our little league team. Like we're actually getting a pretty sweet deal here. And every community has to sort of evaluate that tradeoff for themselves. Yeah. And I would just say sort of the other half of the comment I just made before how difficult it is to get people to take action. Those numbers of actual people taking action might look small, but they're like the other side of this is that it doesn't take that many people to make a pretty big because almost no one does anything. If you can get a few people to do something, it can make a very big impression. If you're having one of these small town sighting meetings or permitting meetings or whatever, you can get two or three people to show up. That makes a big difference at a meeting like that. It's massive. It's massive. These are tiny counties. And I will just say, too, the Internet is really good at making a vocal minority feel like the majority. So actually being in person and seeing people show up that are in the community, these are tiny places where people know each other. And a county commission, a lot of the states we work in permit at the county level, some at the state level, you know, through the PSC or the PUC. You know, they're overwhelmed when they see 500 comments and some negative ones. And how do we make sense of this and who's showing up in the room? And it's all quite confusing. Generally, if you're a county commissioner and you're like a full time farmer and you're maybe doing this off the side of your desk as a part time thing, it's incredibly difficult to make that decision. And everybody's looking at you because you live in a tiny town. Yeah, I would say if there's one thing over my head that I've noticed that the whole right wing media messaging machine is good at, it is precisely that it is creating the impression of a lot of people. Right. And you don't need very many real people to create that impression. They are masters of creating that impression. It's very effective. I want to talk a little bit about you have these AI agents sort of developing and testing messages and they're seeing the response and then they're revising and testing again. And I see the value in some sense in automating a lot of this and getting AI to do this because you do a lot very quickly. You can do a lot of testing and revising and retesting and revising very quickly. Maybe this is a cynical thing to say, but I'm not sure that the messages that are going to be the most efficacious are necessarily the messages that are the most strictly accurate. I see what you're saying. Yes. So, you know, like if you just put AI on it and they're running and testing and their goal is efficacy, you can see how you can stray into messages that might not seem strictly accurate. Or, you know, there's a line between accurate and inaccurate is very fuzzy, like exaggeration count, you know, like metaphors, are they accurate? So I guess I'm just wondering, like, where is the human being in there making those judgment calls about what is to be done? And I think that's a really good question. What is too far? Or what is too much? Or like, what has gone beyond the bounds of accuracy? How do you police that? This is so important. And just, you know, to clarify for the audience, we don't actually use AI-enabled tools to generate content. I know some organizations do and have found efficacy with that strategy. We use AI-enabled tools in a different way, really around helping aware us of disinformation, big news stories, helping us categorize lots of content or, you know, making sense of large amounts of data, detecting AI manipulation sometimes in local dockets. So we don't use it for content. I think the problem we face, right, with the AI slop and all of the stuff on the internet, people just don't trust it. They don't trust what they see. It's not good content. But who do they still trust? They trust each other. They trust their neighbor. So really, our entire organizational strategy, we work outside the U.S. as well, in Brazil, South Africa, the U.K., Canada. It's really, the same method, though. It's the same playbook. Just empower the people, right? Rural speaks rural. Conservative speaks rural. We don't need to say anything. We don't need to manufacture anything. We don't need AI agents to say anything. Just go talk to the person that already lives next to the utility-scale battery energy storage system. How do they feel about it? What did they get? You know, oh, people are saying Vess is flammable and starts on fire. Go talk to a firefighter and see what they have to say, right? They live in the U.S. and they have to say, you know, oh, people are saying Vess is flammable and starts on fire. Go talk to a firefighter and see die about safety. So go see how they feel. And they have battery energy storage in their town. So I think we need to get out of the way as brands. I think that the age of the Internet is over where brands were important. I don't think they are. I think we're in the user-generated era of the Internet. And we as sort of practitioners and campaigners, we really just need to empower the people. And the message won't be perfect to your point, David. It's going to be authentic. It's going to be emotional. It's not going to be perfectly wrapped up in a bow like some high-production $300,000 ad we created somewhere in a studio. That's not what the Internet likes anymore. It's not what people want to see. They want authenticity and they want somebody they trust. So it's either in their own affinity group, like mom speaking to mom, or there's universally credible messengers, like a firefighter or a nurse or, you know, somebody who everyone trusts and looks to for credible information. So it's going to be our strategy is really about that. We are like a storytelling juggernaut in that respect, where we just try to get out of the way and empower people to talk to each other. Here's another question I was wondering about. You have under your umbrella a C3 and a C4, i.e. an educational branch that's about countering misinformation and giving good information and a sort of policy advocacy branch. I don't know how good faith these complaints always are. But one of the things since people have criticized climate groups for in the past is you come in and say science says blah, blah, blah. Like science says temperatures will go up by X amount if we increase emissions by X amount. And then you stray beyond that and you're like, well, then science says we should impose a carbon tax. And a lot of people, I think, rightly are like, well, no, science didn't say that. Like that's a judgment call. That is policy advocacy you're doing there. That is your judgment about what we're doing. And I think that's a good thing. And , I think that's a good thing. And I science. That's not facts. That's advocacy. How do you think about keeping those distinct? I think it's a really great question. I mean, I would say for us, if we don't have the right development environment to build, then no amount of public support or social permission is going to make that project succeed. And I think the U.S. clean energy development pipeline, right, we have like a really significant attrition problem. I think it's like 13 percent of generation and storage capacity that enters the queue actually reaches commercial operation. So that's unbelievable. There's lots of things broken. And I think increasingly we're in a new moment around social permission. It's not just is the technology viable and is it affordable? It's will people let us build it? So I think we've really focused on that. Where policy really comes into play is let's say we're in a community. Say it's a rural community that doesn't yet host utility scale renewables. So we have to make a blueprint, right? So that's called an ordinance. And then the ordinance, right, it can either be development friendly or can be prohibitive like or could even act as an outright ban, like something like, oh, we need three to five mile setbacks from any home, which is basically an outright ban, you know, for wind, for example, that I've seen. And so right now in the U.S., we're banning land faster than we're permitting and building projects. And there's a lot of people really concerned about this. So the nexus of that, that's really policy, right? How do we overturn short term bans and moratoria? I mentioned how county commissioners, right? It's a nerve wracking thing. And I empathize deeply being from, you know, a community surrounded by a lot of farmland. Everybody knew everybody in the town I grew up in. Here you are being faced with all of this polarizing, you know, mixed feedback from your constituents. Yes. People yelling at you, people getting really, really mad. Your community members, who you know, getting very mad at you about things they've heard online. I hear, I hear stories like that all the time. And so I empathize. And we're also seeing legislative sort of model bills or model ordinances travel from state to state right now that are pretty scary when we think about outright bans on these technologies. And we're losing land, I would just say, faster than we're building the projects. But this gets back to how do you just operationally and legally keep your C3 and your C4 distinct? I mean, because they're both in some sense using some of the same tools, right? I mean, in terms of gathering sentiment, in terms of finding messengers, et cetera, et cetera. Do you worry about the chocolate and the peanut butter getting mixed up? That's a good question. We pretty much stick to education and awareness on the C3 side, and the C4 is where we have unrestricted lobbying or policy engagement that we can do. So we have a pretty strict separation between the two. Of course, education and awareness and changing somebody's mind about how they think about these technologies certainly creates a readiness. It creates, you know, the conditions for a policy to succeed or not succeed. And I think increasingly we see that connection. You can have the most beautifully drafted policy at the state level, the federal level, locally, and it's just destined to fail because you haven't done the work of educating people. And these issues are quite dense. You know, you start saying things like, oh, we're not going to do this. We're not going to do this. We're not inter-regional transmission. And you've lost your audience immediately. Cost allocation. Correct. So how to offtake. I mean, all of these things. How do we bring communities along? So, you know, we really prioritize both. But essentially, the C4, the policy advocacy sort of builds on the education and awareness that we're doing on the C3 side. Well, it's another question, another sensitive question about the education side, which you teed up well here, which is there are some negative sentiments about clean energy that have a germ of truth. Like there have been battery fires. That is a thing that happened. You know, the Moss Landing thing did happen. It is true that mining for some of the materials for these technologies has pretty negative impacts on the communities where the mines are. Like, you know what I mean? It would be easier in some sense if these were just completely made up. But there is a germ of truth. And I think that's a good question. There is a germ of truth in some of these. How do you navigate around that? Do you find that it's helpful to sort of acknowledge that there is a germ of legitimate concern and then work around it? How do you think about that? I'm so glad you asked this. I mean, this is one of the most important, I think, disconnects or maybe disagreements that communicators have across the field around how to deal with this. And I can give you our approach and sort of why we take this approach. But what is so critical is that we have to think about how to deal with this. And I think the most cunning and brilliant about the disinformation machine is that there is always a kernel of truth, right? right? Wind and solar are unreliable, so they can't power a modern grid. Well, yeah, but now there's this amazing invention called the battery, but like you have to kind of acknowledge and then you're down a rabbit hole and you've lost the argument and you've lost the audience because you have to acknowledge, right? So how do we deal with this? And there's lots of different ways that people think about it. For us, we never want to reinforce disinformation. So repeating the disinformation is not something we typically do as an organization. And there's different schools of thought and empirical research on this method, but essentially not reinforcing the disinformation by repeating it. How about you just tell the story you want to tell? And then the disinformation, you know, it rolls off the audience because they're like, but no, this is meaningless to me because I just talked to my neighbor or saw somebody who looks just like me on TikTok driving an EV and they're loving it and having tons of fun and they're charging it for like less than two dollars in their garage overnight. I mean, I think for us, it's really the approaches, how do we fully supplant these narratives with credible messengers? You mentioned the Bess and fires. This is actually a really, really good one. A good example. Yes, Moss Landing happened. That was a horrible tragedy, terrible fire. But those events are rare, right? So instead of talking about Moss Landing and reinforcing that narrative, we decided in all of our best intense hotspots around the country, you know, we went to Taos, New Mexico, all of the places where we're advocating that are big battery energy hotspots. We went in the middle of the world and found the fire chiefs and fire marshals and all those places. They agreed to sit down with us. Well, I was curious about this because they're often the ones I often hear about them being the ones raising the fire concerns and lobbying against the batteries. Like I often hear of fire people being on the wrong side of this. We've encountered that, too. So we went into communities and we said, hey, we're not manufacturing a story. We said, what do you feel about these technologies? Have you ever had a fire incident? Do you want to go on camera with us and talk about it? My favorite story is that I was in a building and I was in a building and I was in a building and I is this one in Taos, New Mexico, the fire chief there. And he's like, you know, the thing about battery energy storage and fires, we never had one. This technology is totally safe. We have tons of it in our community. It's been a huge economic boon for us. You know, I am the voice of safety. I'm telling you, these technologies are really safe. So instead of addressing Moss Landing, addressing fires, we just tell our own story delivered through the most credible messenger you could possibly have, which is a fire chief or a fire marshal. Interesting. I got a bunch of other things I want to ask you. We're running short of time. So let's go. Let's talk about true voice, which is this really interesting, I think, AI tool you've built. So, you know, anybody who's been in a regulatory proceeding or any of these proceedings that involve public comment, I think people will understand intuitively it has become very cheap and easy to generate the appearance of a bunch of comments. Basically, like this has become a very gameable system. And so you've built this tool called true voice that is supposed to go through these comments and be able to tell the legitimate ones from the illegitimate ones or something like that. So what just briefly, what is that tool? What's it for? So, like, imagine you're a regulator and all of a sudden 500 comments, you know, opposing a project. What do those 500 comments mean? You're like, whoa, huge volume. Are they 500 independent people independently reaching the same conclusion? Did one organization, one organization, one organization, one organization, one organization mobilize 500 of their people? Did 20 people submit repeatedly over and over? You know, are they all identical out-of-the-box comments from a form letter? Like, you don't really know and the human eye can't detect that. So what true voice does, it's an AI-enabled product that we built in-house and it essentially can make sense of these based on a number of indicators. Just because there's a lot of comments or because some of them are from a form letter doesn't mean they're fake, right? But we can look at things like automation signals. Did they all come in at the exact same second? Can we look in the voter file and see if these are real human beings or are they Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, right? How do we look at all sorts of different signals and make sense? And so we've got a bunch of case studies now where we've looked at various projects that we've worked on that are on our radar, both, you know, a fossil fuel example, a new gas plant, and also a lot of utility-scale renewable projects to just make sense for either the Public Service Commission or, you know, whatever the jurisdiction is that's considering the this project, be able to help them make a more informed decision. Is the support real? Who is it from? Is it local? Is it from inside the county or is it a bunch of people from outside the county that are weighing in that would be an indicator of astroturfing? So it's just having more informed decision-making. I found it somewhat darkly ironic that one of the case studies here is this Ohio Power Sighting Board. This story got written up in Canary. I think you were involved in sort of looking at a bunch of comments that appeared bogus and then Canary went and called everyone and could only find one of the people involved in the comments. So it was very clearly exposed that a lot, if not the majority of these comments were fake. And that was demonstrated, written about in the media, and then the Ohio Power Sighting Board went ahead and denied the project anyway. So I'm wondering, like, how big an influence are these comments or to what extent are these boards, regulatory boards, or these local boards kind of like coming in with their minds made up already? Like, that story doesn't really end the way you would like it to. It does not end the way we would like it to, but now it's a great accountability moment of like, okay, well, why didn't you sort of, you know, trust the voice of the people and do you belong in this office? So it can turn into an accountability moment. I would say it's a great accountability moment. I would say in the vast majority of case studies, the local public voices are determinative on if something moves forward or doesn't, or the lack thereof, right? If it's a ton of opposition and no support, I would say it is determinative in these decisions. And increasingly, you know, one in three projects dies just in permitting right now. It's highly expensive to the industry, all these delays and cancellations. And, you know, increasingly, LBNL has a great accountability moment. I would say it's a great I'm just curious, like what you found, what messages I was sort of interested to see one of the things that jumped out at me is that the whole competition with China frame, which just dominates among political nerds and among politicians and in D.C. just falls flat with the public. No one on either side cares about that. I'm curious, what else you have found just in your message testing? I mean, is it just all the intuitive stuff like cost and convenience or what matter? You know, that kind of thing. What have you found about messages themselves? Yeah, definitely. I think messages, right, we have to get away from. And I think our biggest failure is sort of our own egos and wanting people to care about climate or wanting them to care about. And really, essentially, what it boils down to, we got almost 70 percent of Americans that live paycheck to paycheck right now. So we're thinking, am I going to keep my job? Everything's more expensive. What about my health care? What about filling my car up with gas? We do this great. It's on our Good Power YouTube channel called What We Pay. And we're telling these stories. There's a story on there from Pennsylvania 10. This is Scott Perry's district. He's a House Republican. And we just talked to this family. They have an $859 utility bill. They pull it up on their screen. We did like a mini documentary. They're like, yeah, we have other bills due tomorrow. So we're going to have to choose which ones to pay. So essentially, yeah, economic security, Republicans and Democrats all have to fill their gas up, their car up with gas. They all have. They have to pay an energy bill. So I would say election cycle after election cycle, having economic security and feeling like one is getting ahead, I would say really, really helps. How do we tie that to the energy transition? Oh, well, how about we stop the tyranny of far off wars and just break our dependence on this stuff and just, you know what, charge your car and your garage for a couple bucks. That sounds pretty great. And if you look at Australia and if you look at Europe, EV sales are through the roof right now. I mean, the trends are everywhere globally. So I'm hoping to see that in the U.S. But I think the values argument around some of these technologies and how ideological they are and how polarizing they are across political lines is really, really holding us back. So I think what is working definitely economic security. I think second, when we look at audiences in rural conservative places where most of the utility scale renewables are being built, energy security, grid reliability, like keeping the power on around extreme weather. So I think what is working definitely economic security is really, really holding us back. So I would say it depends on the audience. Sometimes a climate message really works for like a young audience under 30. This is what I wanted to ask about. One of the big fights right now is I think like everybody, almost everybody has come around basically to thinking, yes, obviously, like cheaper energy, more reliable, better for your personal immediate life is the best thing, is the top thing, is the best thing to lead with. But now there's this argument about like some. Some people want to say, but like, yes, bolstering that with climate will boost you a few points. And then other people will say, no, no, no. If you throw climate in, in fact, you polarize a bunch of people away. Even if you've got them on your side from that, then they'll polarize them away with climate. Like, I wonder specifically about climate. What you found. Can I just start by saying something maybe very polarizing, but I think this is just the most ridiculous false debate. So dangerously distracting from the bigger issues. I'll just say that. I mean, they love it on social media, though. They love it. They love it. And I've been reading all the blogs and news stories and sub stacks and everything about it. I mean, how we think about it is maybe a little different, but I think we can have our cake and eat it, too. And to continue with the dessert analogy. Right. We think about it like a pie. So there's some people right now, like eight percent of young people under 35 rated climate as their top voting issue in 2024. Right. That's a lot of people. So we want to use a climate first message for them. And, you know, it'd be great if people who are kind of could be predisposed to being really driven around a climate message to get more of them, to increase the size of that slice of the pie. But then there's other people who will never be driven by a climate message. I will reference my dad, who is a staunch conservative Trump supporter. But he now loves solar because his HVAC guy has a side hustle doing rooftop solar, not because his daughter works at Good Power, but because his HVAC guy convinced him. You know, he could save money. So, I mean, it really depends on the audience and this sort of crude segmentation between should we say climate, shouldn't we? When you look under the hood and really look at the nuances of how we communicate, the audience segmentation, how we market, the answer is just not black and white like that. It's, you know what, use it if it's advantageous. In most cases, it's not incredibly polarizing. It's also, what I said, a logistical issue. When you say climate, how do the algorithms work? How do the algorithms respond? On TikTok, there's evidence that your content is suppressed. So, it could be a logistical reason. It's not even a polarizing thing. I'm less worried about the polarization of saying climate. I actually don't think it's that big of a deal for most people right now. We're seeing it. We're living it. It's really a logistical thing with certain platforms deciding to suppress or serve your content to different audiences. And how do we get by the goalie? Interesting. Okay. A couple of final questions. One is there is this pro-solar. There are super PAC out there, you've probably heard about them, who have taken a different tack on this. They are just finding politicians who have bad-mouthed clean energy and voted against clean energy, and they're just taking them out. And in taking them out, they're not necessarily saying anything about climate or clean energy. They're just taking them out however they can take them out. But then once they're taken out, they're like, that's what you get when you mess with clean energy. Just a sort of like an 800-pound gorilla tactic here. Like, we are a big enough industry now that you should not mess with us or we will hurt you. And that just, in a sense, kind of bypasses the entire public persuasion, the entire messaging piece of it, all that stuff. It just goes straight to the sort of immediate. The immediate interests of politicians, which are, above all, getting reelected. And they have a budget similar to yours. I'm just wondering, like, how do you weigh that strategy versus yours? Do you see them as a choice? Do you see them as complementary? Yeah. So I know the folks over there doing that work, and I think what they're doing is really interesting. I think it's really valuable. I think it is creating moments, both, you know, real impact electorally. But also media moments that are really important and sort of penetrating various spaces in a way that I haven't really seen. So I think it's really innovative and exciting. I don't think it's a choice. I mean, we do, through our C4, some political activity as well, depending on the level of the ballot. I think it's complementary. I think we can take these stories and understand how the community feels about them. We can tell those stories. So I think it's creating this sort of viral media moment. It's being picked up in the news. I think there's a lot of exciting conversations that are happening that needed to happen and haven't happened before. Okay. By way of wrapping up, what would you do if you could 10x your budget? Ooh, 10x our budget. Okay. Well, I'm going to draw. Here's what's really funny about that. So we did 10x our budget in the last seven years. So that's exactly what we did. We were $2 million back in 2019, and we're now about $20 million. So that's a lot of money that we're going to put into this year. I would draw listeners to our 2030 strategic plan. It's on our website at goodpower.org. We have a roadmap to grow to $100 million. So I'm just going to cheat a little and say we're going to 5x our budget by the end of the decade. And there's a roadmap for how we would do that and where we would grow. And we're making really good progress so far this fiscal year. So I'm feeling a lot of momentum organizationally. I hope we achieve our goal. We have a time-limited mission here. Like we want to work ourselves out of a job and reach a decarbonized economy. As quickly as humanly possible. And so I hope listeners will go there and check it out. What's up next then? Is the new money that's coming in that you're going to raise just expanding current efforts? These Influencer Army, the True Voice thing? Are there other pieces, other programs that you're going to start soon? Is there other stuff coming up soon? Yeah, we have a couple things in the pipes right now. So our 2026 midterm strategy. How do we get out the vote for these technologies on the messages and via the people who are going to move, you know, disillusioned, disenfranchised voters to the ballot box to vote on these issues? And then the legislative session, right? Congress, what will happen in November? Nobody really knows, but we can plan. And how will we look at places where we're going to see zombie anti-renewable bills come back in places like Texas? Well, all these governor, as you well know, there are like two dozen governor races. happening, especially like energy bills. are very implicated in all those races. I'm curious what your approach to those races is. Yeah, and we've been involved in a lot of those places. Virginia, New Jersey, Georgia PSC again this fall, Montana PSC in 24. So in the state level and also, you know, the Arizona Salt River Project election, we ran a large program there around voter education. What is this strange election? One acre, one vote. So I think for us, it's really growing incrementally. A lot of the work we do, over half of our budget is around marginal, right? How do we reach more people? It's marginal expenses, working with more creators, telling more stories. It's a function of paid media and breaking through these difficult, impenetrable narratives, right? How do we trick the algorithm? So essentially more does equal more for us. And a lot of the work we do is empirically proven. So it's really a function of marginal resources that we have at our disposal to be able to grow and reach our impact, both in the US and a bunch of the global markets we work in. Awesome. Well, thank you for coming on. It's so exciting to me that something like this is underway and I just know you're going to learn, if nothing else, learn an immense amount in coming years about what works and what doesn't. And a lot of this is long overdue. So thank you for coming on and walking us through it. Thanks for having me on, David. I really appreciate it. Thanks, everybody. You've been listening to VOLTS, founded and hosted by me, David Roberts, produced by Nate Peavy and supported entirely through the generosity of listeners like you. If you have 10 seconds to spare, please leave a rating or review on your favorite podcast app. It really helps other people find the show. See you next time.