What you’ll get in this episode of Energy Thinks

Humans across history have built networks that provide water, energy, food, transportation, and information—the infrastructure that makes modern life possible! Jim Connaughton, an energy, environment, and technology expert (and the former chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality under George W. Bush), believes we are at the beginning of the next one: an Arc of Enrichment.

In the last two installments of the Arc of Outrage series, I argued that the future needs a voice in today’s infrastructure decisions—and offered four questions that can bring the future into the room. But what happens when a community still does not want the future your project would help build?

Jim Connaughton’s answer is blunt: Go where the future is wanted.

Start with communities prepared to say yes, build there well, and let everyone else see what follows. Not every “no” can—or should—be converted into a “yes.” Jim’s provocation is that leaders should stop spending so much of their time and treasure trying to win over communities locked into opposition. Instead, he says, seek out the places that are prepared to build.

In this episode, I speak to Jim about how we can take advantage of the promise of the Arc of Enrichment amid the growing data center outrage. We discuss his case for sweeping permitting reform and his wonderfully memorable formula for getting infrastructure built: YIMBY + FOMO. Listen in to get his optimistic take (and find out why he thinks “FOMO is a really, really powerful force”).

Share this newsletter with a colleague

Why Jim Connaughton?

Jim is the visionary grounded in pragmatic experience whom I’ve been looking for. He has spent his career at the intersection of energy, technology, innovation, policy, and law. He can geek out on the realities of policy and legal frameworks while still articulating a positive, compelling vision for AI, data centers, and the infrastructure that makes our modern lives possible.

Some of Jim’s insights

On what happens during the Arc of Outrage: “Once you’re in the Arc of Outrage and the community is locked into a NIMBY mode, there isn’t a path. My view is: Pick up your bag and get out fast. The community is just not ready, and that’s okay.”

On starting with communities that want development: “The only process that actually works is starting with a YIMBY community—starting with a ‘Yes, in my backyard’ community. If you start with a ‘Yes, in my backyard” community, they’re already solving for the natural concerns that come up about this infrastructure.”

On building the foundation for a 21st-century future: “What’s coming in the next 20 years is super exciting, but for that to work, it has to sit on top of a 20th-century infrastructure that can make it happen. We cannot enjoy our 21st-century future of a lot more for a lot less unless we build the 20th-century infrastructure that makes it happen.”

Bonus content

More about Jim: James L. Connaughton is an energy, environment, and technology expert with experience spanning the White House and public and private sectors. He served as chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality from 2001 to 2009, advising President George W. Bush on energy, environmental, natural resource, and climate policy. He has since held senior leadership roles across the energy and technology sectors and currently serves as CEO of JLC Strategies and a senior advisor to Nautilus Data Technologies.

Order your copy of The Myth and The Moment: From Polarization to Progress in the New Energy Landscape.

Watch the episode on YouTube or listen to the podcast on Substack.

More from my recent Arc of Outrage series:

• “The Arc of Outrage Has Come for Data Centers”

• “Stop Calling It Data Center Misinformation”

• “We Are Nowhere Near Peak Data Center Outrage”

• “The Data Center Arc Isn’t Fracking. It’s Worse.”

• “The Future Has the Right of Way”

• “Everything We Do Is Making It Worse”

• “Arc of Outrage: Bring the Future into the Room”

Recent podcasts:

• “The Ride You Can’t Get Off”

• “Persuasion Won’t Shorten the Arc of Outrage” with Lee Beck

• “Boardwalk’s Scott Hallam on Lessons from a Past Arc of Outrage”

• “The Cost of a No-Build Future”

• “Arc of Outrage: Who Speaks for the Future?”

What to do next in The Moment

• Read The Myth and The Moment? Share your thoughts with a review—it helps others discover the book.

• Forward this newsletter to an infrastructure leader navigating their own NIMBYs, YIMBYs, and BANANAs.

• Need to prepare your organization for the Arc of Outrage? Reach out to schedule a leadership briefing.

• If Jim’s vision resonated with you, heart this post and share it with someone building what comes next!

Join the community!

To a little healthy FOMO,

Tisha

Today’s installment continues the Arc of Outrage series exploring the cycle of public opposition around data centers—and what leaders can do to shorten the arc and survive. I have argued that the future has the right of way and explored who speaks for the future. Projects must defer to communities, and communities must defer to the next generation. But what does that mean in an actual project meeting?

For the future to be a stakeholder, you need to bring it into the room where the conversations are happening. Today I tell you how.

Both of these things are true:

• The idea of the future as a stakeholder is inherently abstract.

• Your project outreach needs to make the future very tangible for your stakeholders.

Share this newsletter with a colleague

Four questions that put the future in the room

Infrastructure executives have asked—and today I’m answering—How do you practically make the future a stakeholder?

1. If the future is a stakeholder, who represents it in early project discussions?

This isn’t a sound-bite opportunity for you to blurt out a question like Who represents the future in this room and what won’t get built? in a hostile meeting. The question is a good one, but not one to bandy about carelessly.

In your early information gathering to understand the community, I have long advised you to learn and listen. You were likely already planning to get a sense for the needs of various business leaders and local governments. But invoking the future means you must gently expand your understanding by asking businesses and government officials these kinds of questions:

• What type of businesses are growing?

• How are demographics changing? Who is leaving? Arriving?

• What opportunities are desired but missing?

• What obstacles keep businesses or families from staying here?

• What would give former residents a reason to come back and stay here?

With political leaders you can explore important and nuanced ideas by asking these kinds of questions:

• What community elements are important to preserve?

• What are your three regional priorities for public services that need to improve?

• Do you have a vision of what your community looks like in 10 years? In 30?

In short: You don’t represent the future in these discussions. You must evoke it—through careful, open-ended engagement.

2. What does a good future mean in practical terms?

I’ve been giving this a lot of thought, and while specifics will, of course, vary by jurisdiction, here are my four pillars of a good future for any community. What are yours?

1. Opportunity: There must be economic opportunity for individuals to find jobs, entrepreneurs to create businesses, and corporations to thrive (and create those jobs).

2. Public capacity: The local government(s) must be able to plan, staff, regulate, and provide the roads, schools, emergency services, housing, and other services a healthy community requires.

3. Quality of life: Communities value different elements of a good quality of life, but we all know it’s central to creating a place you want to live, recreate, work, and raise the next generation. A community may value its beautiful natural environment or its upscale shopping and dining. Museums, funky small businesses, multigenerational farms, walkable neighborhoods… There are infinite varieties of what makes a community thrive.

4. Underlying systems: Residents must have the abundant, affordable, reliable energy and communications infrastructure that opportunity and quality of life depend on. Energy and communications infrastructure are non-negotiable for the other three pillars as well.

Your job is to understand what these pillars look like now in the community you want to base your project in—and then to begin to imagine how your project could shape the pillars’ potential future.

3. When does that conversation happen—and how?

Some communities have a clearly articulated vision of their future, but most do not—particularly not a vision responsive to today’s opportunities around energy and communications infrastructure. Here are practical steps you can take in your outreach to encourage a conversation that regards the future as a stakeholder, not just a destination where your project has already been built:

• Start socialization early with a broad range of stakeholders (yes, even today, when it’s really scary). Say things like: We are looking at [this kind of project]. Here is what is likely fixed to ensure that the project can proceed. Here are areas where we have flexibility to make this project work within a community. We want to understand what you care about and how you are thinking about your future.

• Be transparent throughout your project development. Be honest about what you can and can’t consider. Identify the decisions the community can influence, the constraints you face, and when choices must be made. And keep asking questions about the future and ways this project can help create it.

• Beware of the perception of the bribe. Companies have been bandying around benefits as if data center outrage could be addressed through a big enough set of gift cards. No individual or public official wants to feel as if they are being bought off. The entire purpose of evoking the future is ensuring that the project is creating something that would not be possible without it!

• Consider supporting a community planning process. If the community does not have a process for a conversation about the future it wants to create and how your project does or does not fit in, help make one possible. You will not be able to control or even shape this process—which is scary but critical to its success! Encourage a local government or trusted institution to convene it. Provide resources for, but do not get involved in the selection of, an independent facilitator. Where appropriate, have your leaders answer questions and participate in exploring the art of the possible.

4. How do you discuss the cost of doing nothing without making your words sound like a threat?

This question is smart because it recognizes the difference between important project insights and effective engagement strategies.

You can’t just tell a community that rejecting your project means forfeiting all kinds of great opportunities. That may be true, but in an environment with a deficit of trust, this is the likeliest response: Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Do this instead: As part of the discussions with stakeholders, introduce the comparison of plausible futures honestly, by gently asking these kinds of questions:

• What happens if the project does not proceed?

• What alternatives exist? How long would they take?

• Which existing problems remain?

• What new opportunities might be lost—or created?

This is the tough nut every project developer must reckon with: The no-build option may be the right choice. Your job with this engagement isn’t to manufacture anxiety or urgency. Your job is to replace the easy no (which is a false option) with consideration of the real opportunities and trade-offs that community leaders must reckon with.

Put the trade-offs to be managed (opportunities and benefits) on the table: energy, water, housing, traffic, public services, tax revenue, environmental impacts, and the community’s ability to manage growth. Then move to solutions. What would have to change for the project to earn a place in the future the community wants?

If your project works only when its benefits are inflated and its costs are minimized, your project hasn’t earned a place in the community.

Seize the day

Putting the future in the room doesn’t guarantee support for your project. What it can do is open the discussion, uncover real potential benefits the project could create, and convey trade-offs—all of which help make the future a stakeholder instead of something to be feared.

Because, as we’ve explored in this series, the Arc of Outrage is fueled by fear that a future no one chose is being imposed. When you expand the futures your stakeholders can imagine to include a future worth building, that opens up some new conversations.

I’m providing limited executive and board briefings—reach out to request one.

Can you help others find my work? Share this post and heart it below.

Support my work: upgrade to paid

To the art of the possible,

Tisha

Today, the Arc of Outrage series turns to the forgotten stakeholder in energy infrastructure projects: the future. Evoking the future offers your best bridge to solutions with today’s skeptical communities.

What you’ll get in this solo episode of Energy Thinks

Your next infrastructure project has a stakeholder who will never attend a public hearing: the future.

I have argued that the future has the right of way—and that choosing not to build carries costs of its own. In this episode, I take on a difficult, practical question: How do you represent the future in your engagement with communities without simply invoking it as just another argument for your project?

This practical decision—how to invoke the future—matters because the right answer represents the best hope you have to dampen the Arc of Outrage and get to yes with communities. Listen to the episode to learn how.

Both of these things are true:

• Communities are demanding agency over what gets built around them.

• The community members in the room today are not necessarily thinking about what future generations require of them.

Share this newsletter with a colleague

Four questions to ask yourself before you bring a project to a community

Who represents the future? What would make this a community its children will want to come home to?

What does a good future include? You are not entitled to a place in a community’s future simply because your project produces something the country needs.

When should the future conversation happen? What matters here? What future does this community already imagine? Could this project contribute to it—or what would have to change for it to do so?

How do you discuss the cost of not building without making a threat? If the community’s future looks better without this project, this project is not adequately compelling.

Bonus content for this episode

My latest book: The Myth and The Moment

More from my recent Arc of Outrage series:

• “The Arc of Outrage Has Come for Data Centers”

• “Stop Calling It Data Center Misinformation”

• “We Are Nowhere Near Peak Data Center Outrage”

• “The Data Center Arc Isn’t Fracking. It’s Worse.”

• “The Future Has the Right of Way”

• “Everything We Do Is Making it Worse”

Recent podcasts:

• “The Ride You Can’t Get Off”

• “Persuasion Won’t Shorten the Arc of Outrage” with Lee Beck

• “Boardwalk’s Scott Hallam on Lessons from a Past Arc of Outrage”

• “The Cost of a No-Build Future”

Watch on YouTube or listen on Substack.

Get started!

→ Need support navigating the Arc of Outrage? Reach out to schedule a briefing.

→ If this episode resonated with you, please review Energy Thinks wherever you listen.

→ New here? Subscribe here to receive Both of These Things are True each week.

Heart the forgotten stakeholder below!

Support my work: upgrade to paid

To the future,

Tisha

Today’s installment continues the Arc of Outrage series, which explores the predictable cycle of public opposition now rising around data centers—and what leaders must do to soften, shorten, and survive it.

In a recent briefing I had with data infrastructure executives, one summed up their efforts to respond to growing data-center opposition with this gem: “Everything we are doing is making it worse.” It’s true.

And they’re not alone.

The standard engagement playbook is designed to secure approval for projects that are expected to be approved. But when you’re working through the Arc of Outrage, you’ll find these standard engagement tactics enrage citizens and the elected officials who represent them.

Here’s what to do instead.

Share this newsletter with a colleague

Both of these things are true:

• To get any project approved, infrastructure leaders rely on a standard engagement playbook run by their tried-and-true team of communications, government affairs, and permitting experts.

• In the Arc of Outrage, that playbook and the familiar advice your tried-and-true team gives you will exacerbate the outrage it is intended to manage.

Six standard engagement mistakes your expert team is probably making in the Arc of Outrage—and what you should do instead

1. Your experts say: Stay quiet until the project is ready.

The problem with this advice: Ninja-like project development used to be a best practice: Companies should be neither seen nor heard! And it made sense, because early engagement does carry risk. Isn’t allowing a community to learn about a project just asking for opposition, both genuine and ginned-up? And companies must weigh the very practical considerations of locking up land, site access, and rights of ways without setting off a bidding war.

In the Arc of Outrage, however, this approach is a recipe for disaster. That’s because the very proponents you need for approvals are the people who will later be on the receiving end of the rage when the project is announced. You see the results across the country in delayed approvals, hasty moratoria, and reversed tax incentives.

Instead: Socialize your project early, while meaningful choices remain. Map your key stakeholders and start light-touch early conversations with them. We are thinking about this project. What is important to your community? What are your interests, concerns, and priorities around project development? Listen and digest. Tell them you’ll return when you have more of a project concept.

2. Your experts say: Lead with facts and benefits.

The problem with this advice: Communities do not want to be told what’s coming and then subjected to attempts to convince them that it is good for them.

Instead: Lead with questions about the community’s present needs and future vision. Stakeholders will have different and possibly divergent perspectives about their communities’ priorities. Your job for any particular project is to start teasing out an understanding of what’s important to this community and what contribution your project could make that would be genuinely beneficial. As I wrote in “The Future Has the Right of Way,” project proponents and community stakeholders must make a concerted effort to consider the project in the context of the community’s future.

3. They say: Correct the misinformation.

The problem with this advice: It is important to correct consequential errors, but do not imagine that that correction will address project opposition. If stakeholders don’t trust you, they won’t believe you anyway.

Instead: Find the concern underneath the disputed fact. Ask for more information. If this were addressed, would it assuage your concerns about the project? (Often the answer is no!) What are other things that you are worried about?

4. They say: Present a strong community benefits package.

The problem with this advice: I’m all for your organization putting together a generous community benefits package. Executives often ask my team for a menu of benefits they should work from. But here’s the thing: If you put forward a package in a vacuum, it feels like a payoff. And you end up with the same problem you had in Number 1: your needed project proponents trying to defend their approval of your project.

Instead: Let local priorities define what “benefit” means. Every community wants the best deal it can get. That means that there is no menu community leaders will want to select from—they want their own, bespoke solutions. Because a project must be additive to the future the community is trying to build, community interests must shape the solutions set. Depending on the place, options might include workforce development, improved public services, upgraded infrastructure, more affordable energy, academic engagement, high school trade programs, or support for local business innovation. (And there you have a starting menu, for those who have been asking for it!)

5. They say: Mobilize supporters for the hearing.

The problem with this advice: You do, in fact, need project supporters to turn out as project advocates. But a superficial turnout effort will not carry the day.

Instead: Build relationships with credible project champions. Ultimately, you need local business and political leaders to champion your project (because it is good for the community and its future!) who are visible, accountable, and prepared to remain engaged long after the vote.

6. They say: Call out hypocrisy and agendas among opponents.

The problem with this advice: Once you’ve built up a great project with a genuine value proposition for community stakeholders, it can be incredibly frustrating to face passionate, vocal, even professionalized opposition. Inevitably, you’re told to take the fight to them and use their tactics. Don’t—because you will be (and should be) held to a higher standard.

Instead: Compare the build and no-build futures honestly. The cost of doing nothing belongs in the discussion. Work with stakeholders to answer these questions: What alternatives exist to this project that are acceptable? What opportunities might be lost if it doesn’t get built? You are introducing trade-offs and ensuring that your project provides a clear net benefit compared with a future where it doesn’t get built.

Seize the day: You can course-correct amid the storm

Bring your managers and your comms, permitting, and government-affairs teams together to work through these six directives. Ask them:

• Can we reengage with local leaders to hear their vision and priorities?

• What meaningful choices are still open to allow them to shape the project?

• Who has the credibility and courage to champion our project?

• Have we compared the build and no-build futures honestly?

Then adjust the engagement plan, project schedule, and budget accordingly.

If everything you are doing is making it worse, don’t just do more of it.

(But do heart this post!)

Need help? I’m providing limited executive and board briefings—reach out to request one.

Support my work: upgrade to paid

It’s time to course-correct,

Tisha

Today, the Arc of Outrage series asks the uncomfortable question: If we demand that energy infrastructure proponents account for the future that they would build, shouldn’t energy infrastructure opponents also account for the future that would result from not building?

What you’ll get in this solo episode of Energy Thinks

When it comes to energy and the future, there is no do-nothing option. Doing nothing is, in fact, doing something—and that something needs to be called out.

It’s nonnegotiable: The future has the right of way. So no, energy infrastructure companies cannot impose their preferred future on communities. But neither can communities and opponents pretend that stopping energy infrastructure projects preserves the status quo.

Choosing not to build also chooses a future—with costs and trade-offs. Without building, today’s status quo becomes tomorrow’s stagnation. The more I work through this series, the more convinced I am that all parties are often forgetting our most important stakeholder: the future.

If we’re serious about building the systems of the future, we must engage communities in shaping the future they want to create.

Share this newsletter with a colleague

Both of these things are true:

• Project proponents must answer: What future are you asking this community to accept?

• Project opponents must answer: What future are you creating for your community if this project does not happen?

Today’s outrage is understandable—and predicted by the Arc of Outrage. However, as energy infrastructure leaders, we must expect more of our civic leaders and elected officials than outrage served up in the forms of moratoria and projects denied. A responsible “no” must be paired with a feasible alternative and an honest accounting of its consequences.

A few key ideas from the episode

On what the future requires: “The future as a stakeholder is what is going to happen where I live. It means my kids want to come home ... That future requires environmental stewardship. It requires economic stewardship. And it absolutely demands a certain amount of opportunity and growth.”

The alternative to “no”: “Be thinking about the future as a stakeholder. Engage with your communities in a way that helps facilitate a conversation about what they want to create, and then be willing to change your project. Ultimately, it’s going to be community leaders that have to defend your project, and so it’s going to have to be awesome!”

Bonus content for this episode

My latest book: The Myth and The Moment

More from my recent Arc of Outrage series:

• The Arc of Outrage Has Come for Data Centers

• Stop Calling It Data Center Misinformation

• We Are Nowhere Near Peak Data Center Outrage

• The Data Center Arc Isn’t Fracking. It’s Worse.

Recent podcasts:

• “Persuasion Won’t Shorten the Arc of Outrage” with Lee Beck

• “The Ride You Can’t Get Off”

• “Boardwalk’s Scott Hallam on Lessons from a Past Arc of Outrage”

Watch on YouTube or listen on Substack.

What to do next in The Moment

• Need help navigating the Arc of Outrage? Reach out to request a briefing.

• If you enjoyed this episode, I’d appreciate it if you took a moment to leave Energy Thinks a five-star rating wherever you listen to podcasts.

• And if this newsletter was forwarded to you, subscribe here.

Create the future: Hit the heart button below!

Support my work: upgrade to paid

The future has the right of way. See you there,

Tisha

Welcome back to the Arc of Outrage series, exploring the predictable cycle of public opposition now rising around data centers—and what leaders must do to soften, shorten, and survive it.

I can relate to the data center outrage. Tech CEOs have spent the last year painting a bleak picture of the future: aggressive data center build-out requiring unprecede…

Read more

What you’ll get in this episode of Energy Thinks

The future requires massive infrastructure build-out. But communities have made it clear: They will not accept infrastructure that feels imposed.

That tension in a nutshell—aka Both of These Things Are True:

• We need to build.

• People need agency over what gets built around them.

You know I’ve been writing about the Arc of Outrage: the predictable cycle of public opposition that comes for major infrastructure projects. Right now, the Arc is rising around data centers. But data centers are not the only infrastructure at issue; all infrastructure is entering a new era of scrutiny.

Earlier arcs teach us this crucial lesson: We can’t avoid the outrage, but we can move through the cycle without making it worse. Key insight: Outrage gets enflamed when people believe that decisions have already been made and the public process is performative.

You will encounter outrage. How will you lead through it?

That’s why you should listen to Scott Hallam, president and CEO of Boardwalk Pipelines, on this episode of Energy Thinks. Scott talks about what the pipeline industry learned from its own, earlier Arc of Outrage—and how he’s applying those lessons as he leads one of the companies building the energy future.

Share this newsletter with a colleague

Why Scott Hallam?

Because Scott and Boardwalk are working on one of the most important questions in energy right now: How do you build for a generational increase in demand while earning public confidence in a moment of skyrocketing skepticism?

Boardwalk’s Borealis Project is designed to expand access to Marcellus and Utica natural gas supplies and deliver more energy to markets across Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, Florida, and the regions in between. Scott says this expansion is part of a broader generational opportunity: onshoring, electrification, data centers, power generation, and the need for affordable, accessible, secure energy.

But Scott does not separate the market opportunity from the human-centered challenges. He has lived through the pipeline battles; he knows how communities react when they feel ignored, managed, or overrun. And he is clear that the industry is better than it used to be, but not yet as good as it needs to be.

As Scott told me, “People want to be part of this process. They don’t want the process to be inflicted upon them.” Communities are not only asking whether a project is safe or economically beneficial. They are asking whether they have any meaningful agency over the future arriving around them.

Scott said something else that you—the energy infrastructure leader—must wrestle with: “I don’t think we could go into a community with any degree of authenticity and the belief that it’s going to happen the way that we envision it without change.”

This is not a concession; it is a leadership posture—one well suited to softening, shortening, and ultimately surviving the Arc of Outrage.

Some of Scott’s insights:

On why opposition isn’t—at its heart—political: “When I’m in a community, I don’t feel like it’s a political issue as much as it is a human issue. When I’m in a community and we’re talking about pipeline projects, and we face concern, even opposition, it’s because people care about their families, they care about their communities, they care about their property. They are very engaged, and I see that as a positive sign.”

How to build real trust: “There’s never a one-size-fits-all approach. Trust is the key ingredient, and to start with trust, we have to understand what’s important to communities. … We want communities to be just as passionate about our projects as we are.”

On the generational opportunity for energy: “We’re in a generational time when it comes to energy and energy infrastructure. … We want to make sure the way we address the market, communities, and landowners matches the moment.”

Bonus content!

More about Scott: Scott joined Boardwalk in 2023, bringing more than 20 years of experience across the upstream, midstream, and downstream natural gas industry. He also serves on the boards of the Southern Gas Association, the United Way of Greater Houston, and the Santiago Partnership.

Watch the episode on YouTube or listen to the podcast on Substack.

More from my Arc of Outrage series: “The Data Center Arc Isn’t Fracking. It’s Worse.,” “We Are Nowhere Near Peak Data Center Outrage,” “The Arc of Outrage Has Come for Data Centers” and “Stop Calling It Data Center Misinformation”

My recent podcast episodes “Persuasion Won’t Shorten the Arc of Outrage” with Lee Beck, “The Ride You Can’t Get Off,” “What You Don’t Know About Community Buy-In” with Jonathan Smith, and “Jim Kerr on Your Generational Opportunity”

Order your copy of The Myth and The Moment: From Polarization to Progress in the New Energy Landscape.

What to do next in The Moment

• Enjoying The Myth and The Moment? Leave a review to help more leaders find it.

• If this email was forwarded to you, please subscribe here.

• Forward this newsletter to someone responsible for building infrastructure and therefore navigating public opposition.

• Need to prepare your organization for the Arc of Outrage? Reach out to schedule a leadership briefing.

Please heart and share this post!

Join the community!

To building with communities, not in them,

Tisha

Welcome to the Arc of Outrage. In this series, I have been writing about the Arc coming for data centers, warned that facts and explainers will not stop it, and encouraged leaders to prepare for a longer, harder, more political fight than most companies are currently built to handle.

Data center proponents can learn a lot from the fracking wars and how t…

Read more

What you’ll get in this episode of Energy Thinks

My most important conversations right now are focused on the Arc of Outrage—and what it takes to lead your company through the Arc when opposition to your projects is no longer theoretical. Last week’s Both True explored the Arc: why data center outrage is still climbing, why the worst is likely ahead, and why leaders need to staff for the Arc they are actually in—not the one they hoped for.

This conversation with Lee Beck, chief global policy officer at HIF Global, picks up from there. In this episode, I sit down with Lee to talk about what it takes to make progress in a world that increasingly rewards outrage.

Share this newsletter with a colleague

Why Lee Beck?

Whenever I see Lee at a conference, I grab the seat next to her.

Partly because she’ll inevitably raise her hand and ask an insightful and provocative question. Mostly because we will have the kind of wide-ranging conversation you will hear in this episode.

Lee challenges us to reframe the way we understand the political polarization of energy. Why is energy so incendiary? Because of the issues, values, and meaning we’re now attaching to it: identity, fairness, who pays, who benefits, and who decides. She connects the global energy debates to the local infrastructure fights so central to the Arc of Outrage. Affordability, security, AI, and local control—these topics get bundled together, and the bundle raises the emotional temperature fast.

If we can’t avoid outrage, how do we mitigate it? If communities are being asked to host the infrastructure that powers the future, what do they deserve in return? Lee has wise counsel on that, too.

Some of Lee’s insights:

On building trust with communities: “These interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence matter more than throwing another ad campaign at people: hearing to understand, not just to respond, and moving from persuasion to participation.”

On why the deal has to get better: “How do we sweeten the deal for the communities to host these? There is a lot more participatory capitalism, where communities get a say in how it gets built, potentially equity shares, support for local taxation. There is a lot that can be done in addition to the relationship layer.”

On the momentum of the Arc: “We’ve seen a lot of what I like to say is political agenda hitchhiking. We’re attaching more and more issues to the energy debate and also the climate discussion. That has led to a politicization where energy and climate are now politically divisive issues.”

Bonus content!

More about Lee: Prior to her role as chief global policy officer at HIF Global, Lee held leadership roles at Clean Air Task Force, and the Global CCS Institute, and worked across carbon capture, hydrogen, synthetic fuels, industrial policy, and pragmatic approaches to energy transition and decarbonization. She is currently a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center, and serves on the Advisory Boards of Project Tempo and EPG Romania.

Watch the episode on YouTube or listen to the podcast on Substack.

More from my Arc of Outrage series: “The Arc of Outrage Has Come for Data Centers” and “Stop Calling It Data Center Misinformation.”

My recent podcast episodes “The Ride You Can’t Get Off,” “What You Don’t Know About Community Buy-In” with Jonathan Smith, “Jim Kerr on Your Generational Opportunity,” and “Energy Abundance Is Non-Negotiable. Responsibility Is, Too.”

Jason Bordoff’s recent Wall Street Journal article, “The Winners and Losers of Oil’s New World Order.”

Order your copy of The Myth and The Moment: From Polarization to Progress in the New Energy Landscape.

What to do next in The Moment

• Enjoying The Myth and The Moment? Leave a review to help others find it.

• If this email was forwarded to you, please subscribe here.

• Need to develop your Arc of Outrage strategy? Reach out for a briefing.

If you’re enjoying the Arc of Outrage series, leave a heart on this piece.

Support my work: upgrade to paid

To participation over persuasion,

Tisha

Welcome to the Arc of Outrage! In this series, I have explained the Arc coming for data centers, warned you that facts and explainers will not stop it, and explored the topics in a recent solo pod. I am writing this series to help data center proponents flatten the Arc and, ultimately, survive it.

If you’re planning and building data centers—company lead…

Read more

This solo pod continues the series on the Arc of Outrage, the predictable and unavoidable opposition cycle that data centers are facing.

What you’ll get in this solo episode of Energy Thinks

The energy industry has been here before.

I warned data center proponents to stop calling the opposition they are facing “misinformation.” The problem is that data centers are now on the Arc of Outrage. I watched this happen during the fracking wars, when isolated local concerns became organized opposition and organized opposition became a national movement. The specifics change, but the pattern is familiar. The Arc for data centers is particularly steep because they are evoking a basket of concerns, all at once: energy affordability, grid reliability, AI writ large, local control, and the fear that too much is being built too fast.

This episode is not about avoiding the Arc. You cannot. It is about understanding where you are on it, what is coming next, and how to move through it with more skill.

Share this newsletter with a colleague

In this solo episode, you’ll hear me think through:

• What the Arc of Outrage looks like: the Before Times, the phases, and what comes after

• Why the Arc cannot be avoided, even by good companies with good projects

• Why your job is to flatten the Arc (not avoid it)

• Why the winners will be the companies that get real early

Here’s a taste of what you’ll get:

On skipping the Arc: “You cannot avoid it. There is no skirting the arc of outrage. There is no off-ramp. This is not a lovely little freeway. This is the Disney ride you didn’t mean to get on that you cannot get off until it’s over.”

On whom data center developers need on their team: “If you can find a half dozen people who lived through the fracking wars, particularly in a blue jurisdiction, you are going to have a really good ally to help you get through this.”

On the actual job in front of companies: “Your job is to soften and shorten the Arc for your project and your company.”

On what leaders should expect: “Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. But if you know that, you can manage it. Set realistic expectations: with your leadership, with your investors, with your stakeholders, with your customers.”

Bonus content for this episode

My latest book: The Myth and The Moment

Earlier installments in this series: The Arc of Outrage Has Come for Data Centers and Stop Calling It Data Center Misinformation.

Two recent podcasts: “What You Don’t Know About Community Buy-In” with Jonathan Smith and “Jim Kerr on Your Generational Opportunity.”

Watch on YouTube or listen on Substack

What to do next in The Moment

Preparing for the Arc of Outrage? Reach out to request a briefing. Can you please take a moment to give Energy Thinks a five-star rating wherever you listen to your podcasts? If this was this forwarded to you, please subscribe here.

Hit the heart button below—it helps others find our work!

Support my work: Upgrade to paid

Keep your hands and feet inside the vehicle,

Tisha

Welcome to the Arc of Outrage series. In the first installment, I introduced you to the Arc coming for data centers. I warned you that facts and explainers will not stop it—nothing will! This series is designed to help data center proponents flatten the Arc and ultimately survive it.

The outrage is real, and people are starting to call you names. The asc…

Read more

What you’ll get in this episode of Energy Thinks

This week, I sit down with Jonathan Smith, founder and principal of Mobilis Works, an advisory practice to the Problem Solvers on policy innovation, economic competitiveness, and civic capacity, for one of the most thoughtful conversations I’ve had about what it actually takes to move from policy ideas to real-world implementation.

Jonathan has spent his career at the intersection of Congress, state government, economic development, workforce strategy, and coalition building. And this conversation gets into one of the questions I’ve been obsessing over lately: How do we help the Problem Solvers actually solve problems?

In this episode, we discuss:

• Why on-the-ground implementation is the most important part of the policy process

• How communities became stuck chasing grants instead of building long-term investment readiness

• What project developers, policymakers, and industry leaders misunderstand about community buy-in

• Why people support projects when they believe they are helping design their community’s future

• Why opposition is not a “facts” problem but an agency problem

Share this newsletter with a colleague

Why Jonathan Smith?

Jonathan Smith has spent his career betwixt and between ambitious policy ideas and on-the-ground reality. He most recently led Michigan’s effort to help communities, workers and businesses adapt to changes in the auto and energy sectors.

What struck me most about Jonathan is that he doesn’t talk about this abstract space in abstract terms. He focuses on the mechanics of getting things done: building trust, developing local capacity, understanding trade-offs, and creating conditions where communities can shape their own future instead of simply reacting to someone else’s plans.

Some of Jonathan’s insights

On the key ingredient to successful policy implementation: “You have to be grounded in reality. This has to work for the people it’s supposed to work for. You can’t get bogged down in the ideology or the idealistic version of it. What matters is whether there’s real impact and real outcomes.”

On getting communities to yes: “All communities really have right now is the ability to say no. But if you give them the ability to design their own future, you will see a huge difference in the way these projects land. If we can build more proactivity at the community level, now the community is choosing what projects to bring in rather than the other way around.”

On the secret sauce to coalition building: “You can solve lots of different problems with a single solution. The key is asking: Am I actually solving your problem with this?”

On what the Problem Solver and project developer must understand: “Most people don’t have super-strong feelings about a lot of this policy stuff. What they care about is: Do they live in a community they feel safe in? Are they happy with their neighbors and their day-to-day lives? Do they have a job that doesn’t just provide a paycheck, but provides dignity and a sense of accomplishment? We have to think about policy from their point of view—because if people see it as prioritizing somebody else’s agenda over theirs, they don’t see themselves in it. You’re talking past people.”

Bonus content!

Watch the episode on YouTube or listen to the podcast on Substack.

My most recent Both True, “Arc of Outrage,” on why communities do not experience infrastructure fights as technical disputes alone.

My recent podcast episodes “Jim Kerr on Your Generational Opportunity,” “Energy Abundance Is Non-Negotiable. Responsibility Is, Too.,” and “Climate Plans Get Punched in the Face,” with California PUC Commissioner Matt Baker.

Order your copy of The Myth and The Moment: From Polarization to Progress in the New Energy Landscape.

What to do next in The Moment

• Enjoying The Myth and The Moment? Leave a review to help others find it.

• If this email was forwarded to you, please subscribe here.

Support my work: upgrade to paid

To relationships forged in the fire,
Tisha

This Both True is written for the data center developers, hyperscalers, utilities, and energy companies trying to build amid growing backlash. This is a special “Coming in Hot” Friday edition.

A year ago, “data center” was a term most people hadn’t stopped to ponder. Now, seven in 10 Americans surveyed oppose construction in their area.

I’ve seen this pa…

Read more

The Problem Solvers are the political leaders—elected and appointed—tasked with balancing the aspiration of historic climate mandates with today’s energy system realities. I’ve written this Both True for the energy leaders whose partnership they need.

Too many politicians and policymakers are still refusing to get real on energy.

In many blue and purple j…

Read more

What you’ll get in this episode of Energy Thinks

This week, I sit down with Jim Kerr, chairman, president, and CEO of Southern Company Gas, for a conversation about what happens when the realities of physics, economics, and historically high energy demand collide with The Myth of an Easy Energy Transition.

Jim would be humble and interesting while talking to a tree stump. But lucky for you, he is even more engaging with me. A few things you’ll hear us discuss:

• Why “the laws of physics and economics are undefeated” when it comes to our energy system

• The growing pressure on the natural gas and electric systems as demand rises

• How leaders can move beyond picking winners and losers in energy debates

• Why humility and honesty matter in conversations about energy and climate

We agree: Easy narratives about the energy transition are giving way to mature, nuanced conversations about trade-offs.

Share this newsletter with a colleague

Why Jim Kerr?

Before leading Southern Company Gas, Jim served as a utility commissioner in North Carolina—which means he understands energy not just from the perspective of operations and infrastructure, but also from the perspective of public accountability. He argues for natural gas, reliability, and infrastructure investment while also acknowledging trade-offs, environmental concerns, and the importance of public trust. At a moment when so many conversations about energy devolve into ideological battles, Jim’s uncommon sense of leadership, stewardship, and service elevates the conversation.

Some of Jim’s insights:

On the iron laws and intellectual humility: “This is a business that is ultimately governed by the laws of physics and economics. ... We can wish that they were different, but they’re not going to change. The laws of physics and economics are undefeated. And I think if we will humble ourselves, engage, and listen to each other … we can avoid the certitude that ‘I know the answer, and my answer is unassailably the correct answer.’”

On what customers know about energy complexity: “Fundamentally, folks want an energy system that is as clean, as reliable, as affordable, and as safe as possible. But people also understand there’s a balance to those things—that there are trade-offs inherent in the system.”

Bring on the permitting reform! “The system that we were increasingly reliant on had really been underinvested in fundamentally. … There is no substitute for more fit-for-purpose infrastructure being built. So we need permitting reform.”

On why this moment matters: “I do think we’re at the dawn of a new day of abundance, not scarcity, multiple opportunities, not sort of certitude about … a silver bullet. … I think the next couple of decades are truly an opportunity that will be generational.”

Bonus content!

Bio: Jim Kerr is chairman, president, and CEO of Southern Company Gas, one of the nation’s largest natural gas utilities serving more than 4 million customers across the country. Before joining Southern Company in 2014, he served for eight years on the North Carolina Utilities Commission and was president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Kerr previously practiced energy law and policy at McGuireWoods, where he focused on energy regulation, transactions, and infrastructure development. Today, he is a leading voice on energy reliability, natural gas–electric coordination, and the infrastructure needed to meet growing U.S. energy demand.

Watch the episode on YouTube or listen to the podcast on Substack to hear Jim and me discuss The Myth and The Moment.

National Petroleum Council’s Report Reliable Energy: Delivering on the Promise of Gas-Electric Coordination.

My recent podcast episodes “Don’t Take the Bait,” “Energy Abundance Is Non-Negotiable. Responsibility Is, Too.,” and “Climate Plans Get Punched in the Face,” with California PUC Commissioner Matt Baker.

Order your copy of The Myth and The Moment: From Polarization to Progress in the New Energy Landscape.

What to do next in The Moment

• Email us and we’ll help you with your physics homework.

• Enjoying The Myth and The Moment? Leave a review to help others find it.

• If this email was forwarded to you, please subscribe here.

Support my work: upgrade to paid

To certitude with a splash of humility,
Tisha

A growing number of hyperscaler and data center leaders are now part of the Both of These Things Are True audience. So this one is addressed directly to those leaders.

You built your businesses on the assumption that clean energy ambition and endless digital progress were compatible.

You believed that the energy transition would be…

Read more

What you’ll get in this solo episode of Energy Thinks

In last week’s Both True, I wrote about a shift I’m watching closely: climate priorities being repackaged as affordability arguments. Affordability is now the governing political test on energy—and some decarbonization-first advocates are repositioning their programs as the key to energy affordability.

This week’s solo pod picks up the next, harder question: What do you—the oil and gas leader—do with this insight?

If your first move is to scoff and say, “That’s just climate masquerading as affordability,” you will be correct. But you are unlikely to be effective.

Share this newsletter with a colleague

In this solo episode, I work through:

• Why being right is not the same thing as being effective

• What oil and gas leaders can and cannot credibly call out

• How to respond when affordability arguments skip over energy system complexity

• Why emotional discipline is a core leadership skill

• What political signals from California and Democratic presidential politics may tell us about where energy arguments are headed next

A preview

On the “first simple answer”: “A lot of what is climate masquerading as affordability is a sincere, first, simple solution. And we all need to be committed to working further on that topic to get to the actual, more nuanced answer.”

On why calling it out may not work: “If you say, ‘Oh, that’s just climate masquerading as affordability,’ everyone is just going to roll their eyes and look the other way.”

On what to do instead: “Let’s go up to 100,000 feet. Let’s look at a longer time scale. Let’s explore the question of affordability in a bigger physical context.”

On the real leadership test: “I do 100 percent believe in telling the truth. The subtle thing I want to emphasize here is: When, where, and how can we be effectively persuasive?”

Bonus content for this episode

My latest book, The Myth and The Moment.

My most recent Both True, “Is Climate Action ‘Energy Affordability?’”

Mentioned: Politico’s “Tom Steyer Is Running the Most Expensive Campaign in America. It Might Win Him the California Governorship, and “Tom Steyer’s Climate Pivot Signals New Playbook for Dems.”

Tell me what you think: “Doing Data Centers the Not-Dumb Way” Volts podcast with Jigar Shah.

Relevant podcasts of mine: “Climate Plans Get Punched in the Face” and “Energy Abundance Is Non-Negotiable. Responsibility Is, Too.”

Watch the episode on YouTube or listen to the podcast on Substack.

What to do next in The Moment?

• Want our help with your strategy? Email us to secure a contract spot for Q4 2026.

• Please give Energy Thinks a five-star rating wherever you listen to your podcasts.

• Was this email forwarded to you? Please subscribe here.

Hit the heart button below—it helps others find our work!

Support my work: Upgrade to paid

To effective truth-telling,

Tisha

“Affordability” is now the litmus test on energy for every U.S. politician. Policymakers governing in The Moment know that energy policy now lives or dies on whether people believe it will hold bills down, keep the lights on, and support economic growth.

No wonder, then, that many on the climate left are repackaging pro-climate policies as energy afforda…

Read more

Planning your 2026 leadership event? Order The Myth and The Moment for your team. (Reach out for bulk pricing.)

What you’ll get in this solo episode of Energy Thinks

Last week, I made the case that energy abundance is a civic good—and that oil and gas remain central to achieving it. This solo pod explores some of the consequences of that argument: What does energy abundance as a civic good require of industry? What does it ask of the Problem Solvers? And who decides what comes next?

In this solo episode, I work through:

• What follows from the civic case for energy abundance and the five truths that underpin it

• Why “We’re essential” is not a sufficient case for oil and gas

• What a social contract might require of companies like yours operating at the center of modern life

• Why Problem Solvers matter more than perfect persuasion

• Why someone still has to make a coherent case for unmitigated natural gas (ASAP!)

Share this newsletter with a colleague

A preview

Why a civic case for energy abundance matters: “This is particularly poignant right now, when we see the angst around permitting reform, around power systems’ build-out. The momentum is still on the side of anyone who wants to say no. The only way that calculus is going to change is when there’s a sense of ownership and buy-in and agency around these projects at each community level. Or the nays will always win.”

On the social contract: “If you’re doing something that is essential to the well-being of society, there is a social contract expected of the company: that you give more than you receive, that you are there when needed, that you make certain commitments.”

On problem solvers and confidence: “I don’t think there is a way to say ‘The Myth is dead’ that people living in The Myth of an Easy Energy Transition can hear. The conclusion I’ve come to is that Problem Solvers must have the confidence to say ‘This is right’ and be willing to take the critique.”

Plus: Someone needs to make the case for natural gas. Is that you?!

Bonus content for this episode

My latest book, The Myth and The Moment.

The civic case for energy abundance: Being Essential Isn’t Enough.

Matt Yglesias’ piece “Republican War-Mongering Is Their Worst Economic Policy.”

Relevant podcasts: “Climate Plans Get Punched in the Face” and “The World Changed. The Climate Playbook Didn’t.”

Watch the episode on YouTube or listen to the podcast on Substack.

What to do next in The Moment

• We can help your busy team work more strategically. Email us to secure a contract spot for Q3 2026.

• Please take a moment to give Energy Thinks a five-star rating wherever you listen to your podcasts.

• Was this email forwarded to you? Please subscribe here.

• If this landed for you, hit the heart button below.

Join the community!

To building the social contract,

Tisha