Communication to garner support for energy development

Summary: Communication is critical for the energy industry if it is to garner public understanding and support. The federal government establishes communication campaigns and other projects to improve energy efficiency nationwide.

Communicating to garner public understanding and support is critical for the development of science and technology, including energy. Scholars have long noted the barriers to this communication, such as the complexities of science, significant differences in the predispositions of scientists and most members of the public, and low public understanding of scientific and technological issues generally.

Communicating Energy to the Public

The fate of the energy companies, particularly those involving nuclear power and offshore drilling, is largely determined by public opinion. For example, whereas the nuclear energy industry’s promise was thwarted by accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, it is now experiencing a resurgence of interest as a source of energy with low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and hence a strategy for coping with global warming. As Baruch Fischhoff points out, the most critical factor determining the future of nuclear energy is whether the industry can communicate effectively with the public.

Fischhoff proposes several ways in which the nuclear industry can gain public support through communication. The overall principle is that the nuclear industry needs to care about the public and bring genuine benefits with acceptable risks to society. Two-way communication based on empirical understanding of the public must be a strategic priority. In all activities, nuclear industry managers should avoid unwittingly sending out messages that contribute to a negative image of their business. The industry must pay attention to public perceptions of events and organizations related to the industry, particularly with regard to public health issues. Communication efforts and projects should be evaluated frequently, so that lessons from past experiences can be learned and solutions applied.

Several factors influence the effectiveness of energy communication to the public. A survey of 1,475 California adults by Juliet Carlisle and her associates shows that more than half of the Californians believe that offshore drilling for oil is risky. Members of the public tend to believe messages that offshore drilling is risky regardless of the source of the message, but when the message says that offshore drilling is safe, the public tends to respond based on the source, with greater levels of belief if the source is an environmental organization scientist and less if the source is a governmental scientist; the public response is most skeptical when the source is an oil industry scientist.

Public Perception and Media Coverage of Energy Issues

Americans’ support for energy conservation is high, but their attitude toward the energy industry varies. Public support for nuclear energy and offshore drilling has generally been lower than for other types of energy production. Linda Pifer finds that antinuclear attitudes have been particularly strong among young adults. Moreover, from the 1960s to the 1980s, women were more likely to oppose nuclear power than men. A study finds that women show lower levels of knowledge about nuclear energy, tend to associate nuclear power with dangers, and are more likely to be antinuclear activists compared to men, while other studies find that nuclear knowledge is distributed equally between nuclear supporters and opponents. More science education leads to more favorable attitudes toward nuclear power. For example, Pifer found that a majority of those young adults who took at least four college science courses believed that the benefits of nuclear power outweighed its risks. Generally, in the United States, Democrats and liberals are more concerned with the risks of nuclear power and offshore drilling, whereas the Republicans and the conservatives are more likely to see benefits.

Some scholars have speculated that Americans’ fear about nuclear power and offshore drilling stems from exaggeration of the risks on the part of media. Sharon Friedman and her associates’ study do not find the media guilty, however. They analyzed the coverage of the Chernobyl accident by five major US newspapers and three television networks and did not find exaggeration of the nuclear dangers, other than a large number of references to the need for stricter nuclear regulation in the United States.

However, although the coverage was balanced, with both pro-nuclear and antinuclear opinions, not enough background information was provided to put the accident in context. Among 394 articles and 45 newscasts devoted to the accident, less than 25 percent contained information about safety records, the history of nuclear accidents, and the current status of the nuclear industry; these were important to understand the accident and nuclear industry thoroughly.

Communicating Energy in Campaigns

Communication campaigns are effective tools to increase public understanding of energy and inform the public about new energy technologies. Research suggests that successful campaigns should be planned based on social science theories, such as social learning, reasoned action, diffusion of innovation, and framing. These tools can show what made previous campaigns succeed and what should be expected from current campaigns. Benchmark evaluation of a campaign is also necessary, as it reveals existing audience knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions and provides a basis for measuring campaign effects. Public engagement allows campaigns to be adjusted to achieve the best results and enhance public understanding of the information conveyed in the campaign. Finally, a clear and measurable objective helps to make the campaign focused.

One type of campaign often used by governmental agencies is demonstration. Demonstrations are usually used to promote a particular type of innovative technology. Although they are more expensive compared with alternative methods, such as communicating through mass media, they provide firsthand observation, experience, and measurements and attract bona fide users of the technologies. Susan Macey and Marilyn Brown have found that demonstrations cause changes in the long term but have few short-term influences. Identifying and engaging target audiences are essential. For instance, the Hood River Conservation Project, a $20 million resident conservation demonstration proposed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and funded by the Bonneville Power Administration, engaged many people within and outside those agencies in its design and evaluation plan development. The broad involvement led to a widespread use of the project’s results. The Department of Energy has also sponsored demonstrations of catalytic distillation, an energy-efficient technology. Together with financial incentives, the demonstrations attracted a substantial number of petroleum companies, most of which adopted the new technologies. Sufficient publications, such as brochures, magazines, and articles, are also critical, because a successful demonstration needs to provide enough information to help people make the decision to adopt.

Energy companies also use demonstrations when they promote new technologies. In 1999, Southern California Edison, the primary electricity supplier in Southern California, initiated an “Emerging Technologies Showcase” to promote emerging energy-efficient technologies. The demonstrations were arranged in places where there was market potential. Most of the demonstrations provided information such as engineers’ analyses of the advantages and disadvantages of the emerging technologies and the current technologies. The information was disseminated through on-site publications, the company’s Website, and business journals. Southern California Edison organized about 60 demonstrations and effectively opened a market for the emerging technologies.

Other Governmental Energy Communication Programs

In addition to campaigns, governmental agencies have established other programs to improve public knowledge and efficient use of energy. The Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), for example, grants annual awards for energy and water management to individuals, organizations, groups, and agencies that have made significant contributions to efficient usage of energy and water resources. Pictures of award winners are published on the department’s Website. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has an Energy Star project, which has set voluntary international standards for energy-efficient equipment and is working with appliance producers to reduce standby power consumption. Governmental agencies also provide graphic information about energy efficiency on their Websites and in their publications. For example, the EPA published a calculation that a hotel reducing 10 percent of its energy consumption would have the same financial benefit as selling an additional 930 rooms per year, and that a supermarket reducing 10 percent of its energy consumption could boost profit margins by 6 percent. The EPA also estimated that a desktop computer could save $25 to $75 annually if the power management function was turned on to allow it to enter low-power mode when it was idle. If all the power management functions in the monitors and the computers in the United States were activate, $1.5 billion could be saved.

US presidents have also addressed energy issues. Jeffrey Peake and Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha found that presidents’ national addresses on energy issues had the effect of increasing media coverage on those issues. In July 2001, President George W. Bush issued an executive order requiring all the federal agencies to buy equipment with low standby power functions.

Businesses’ Awareness Programs

Businesses have also begun to educate their employees to use energy more effectively and thus reduce the amount of energy the businesses consume. In the past, workers have habitually left on lights, computers, and other electrical equipment overnight and on weekends. John Eggink calls this electrical waste. He is amazed that wasting electricity is allowed in many companies and even encouraged in some, deemed as a sign of financial success. He finds that electrical waste costs business billions of dollars each year. For all types of business, from plants to offices, more than 15 percent of the electrical bills is estimated to pay for wasted electric energy.

Increasing employees’ awareness of energy consumption, energy costs, and environmental consequences and training them to use energy efficiently, through what Eggink calls energy awareness programs, is helping many companies to save hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example, a program of this type at Verizon cost less than $5,000 but saved 10 million kilowatt-hours and $750,000 in California alone. IBM estimated that it saved $17.8 million one year by encouraging employees to turn off idled electric equipment. Between 1991 and 2004, the UK telecommunications group BT saved $214 million because of its energy awareness program and another $564 million because of its efficient use of transport.

Finding out why people waste electricity is the foundation for a successful energy awareness program. Eggink finds that, because electricity is invisible, people do not naturally witness the energy lost. Although the wattage appears on the monthly utility bill, employees usually do not see the bill or may see it only long after the energy has been consumed. Showing the bill to everyone in a timely manner may be an effective way to increase awareness of energy usage and waste. Visualizing energy usage patterns with graphs is also helpful, allowing people to track the wasting of energy. Electricity generators usually charge higher rates during peak usage times, usually from noon to 7:00 p.m., to avoid the collapse of the grid. People unaware of these rate differences may schedule unnecessary usage of electricity during peak times and thereby create waste by incurring the higher rate, which could have been avoided had they scheduled usage at a different time. Therefore, it is important that energy users be made aware of peak periods.

Meanwhile, the complexity of the scientific terminology may dissuade people from understanding energy issues. Communicating in a relevant, personal, accurate, and easily understood manner and using terms such as dollars and percentage encourages understanding. Relating electricity to other nonrenewable energy resources, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, can also increase people’s motivation to conserve. Charts are also useful, for example bar or pie charts can easily communicate the percentage of energy generated using various fuels and renewable energy sources.

In energy awareness programs, managers’ direct orders and mandates can be counterproductive and may well generate rebellious behavior. Eggink notes that education focusing on positive reasons to conserve energy and successes tends to reinforce employees’ desirable behaviors. Therefore, in each call to save energy, the knowledge, reasons, and possible benefits of saving energy should be provided. Coercion may be more effective than education only where governmental regulations and laws, and attendant consequences for noncompliance, are concerned. Energy awareness programs should be persistent, with materials freshened frequently. Basic information is important: One plant saved $30,000 on electric bills in the first year simply by letting everyone know which switches controlled which lights by labeling the switches.

Knowledge is essential in energy awareness programs, because even highly educated people may subscribe to myths, such as that leaving lights and computers on saves more electricity than switching them on and off, or that switching them on and off shortens their life spans. Eggink also found that people believe computer screensavers save energy. The success of energy awareness programs, he concludes, depends on proper communication regarding energy, which should ensure that employees understand the issues, know the impact of their individual energy use, and know that they can easily make a difference.

Communicating During Crises

Crisis communication is a necessary skill for the energy industry, because crises that involve energy companies often have tremendous impacts. Sonya Duhé finds that having a crisis communication plan in place is the first step in dealing with a crisis. Assuming that a crisis will never happen and having no plan ready is dangerous. Although it is impossible to make precise predictions about when a crisis might happen or what its nature might be, management can still anticipate what types of crises could occur. The crisis communication plan should include backup communication and operation systems, locations to convene the media, and answers for questions that members of the media can be expected to ask. Moreover, the plan needs to be tested to ensure that it works. Selecting the appropriate spokesperson is also very important. During crises, researchers argue, a top manger or the chief executive officer should be the spokesperson. If necessary, a team of spokespersons may be formed to make sure that no miscommunication will occur and to amplify the consequences of the crisis.

Duhé has also provided some rules of crisis communication. Preparation is number one. Since there is no time to prepare after the crisis has occurred, failure can be guaranteed if there is no preparation beforehand. The preparation includes knowledge on the topic and the subject, such as the consequences of an oil spill or a nuclear meltdown. If there is no answer available, the spokesperson should inform the media that the answer is unknown but will be found soon. In response to a question, a spokesperson should never say “No comment,” which will be interpreted as deceptive and will suggest that the company has something to hide. If the question is a “What if?” (hypothetical) question, it is fine to refuse to answer, unless the situation in the assumption is very likely to happen immediately. Agreeing and assuming that journalists will keep comments “off the record” is dangerous. Most of the time, such comments will have negative consequences; journalists’ job is to elicit information and tell the public. Using visuals, such as graphs and videos, will help journalists to understand the topic and produce their stories. Those visual elements will also help the public to absorb information about the crisis.

During the crisis of a public energy shortage, governments also need to communicate with the public—immediately and directly, usually through mass media, regarding their understanding and expectations about how and when the problem will be solved. Governments have tried to use celebrities, such as movie stars and comedians, as well as other attention-getting methods, to enhance the effectiveness of crisis communication.

For example, the governments of New Zealand, Norway, and Brazil have used pictures of empty reservoirs to inform people about their energy crises. The state of Arizona has asked people to raise room temperature a few degrees and reset the timers of pool pumps when utility equipment was not working. The Swedish government asked people to lower thermostats and postpone unnecessary electrical consumption to cope with a daylong electricity shortage one winter. These communication methods not only show that the government is in charge and taking appropriate steps to alleviate the problem but also demonstrate to the citizenry that they can take individual action to mitigate the crisis.

Bibliography

Carlisle, Juliet E., et al. “The Public’s Trust in Scientific Claims Regarding Offshore Oil Drilling.” Public Understanding of Science 19, no. 5 (2010).

Duhé, Sonya. “Crisis Communication.” In Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication, edited by S. H. Priest. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2010.

Eggink, John. Managing Energy Costs: A Behavioral and Non-Technical Approach. Lilburn, GA: Fairmont Press, 2007.

Fischhoff, Baruch. “The Nuclear Energy Industry’s Communication Problem.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, February 11, 2009.

Leggett, M., and M. Finlay. “Science, Story, and Image: A New Approach to Crossing the Communication Barrier Proposed by Scientific Jargon.” Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 2 (2001).

Macey, Susan M., and Marilyn A Brown. “Demonstrations as a Policy Instrument With Energy Technology Examples.” Science Communication 11, no. 3 (1990).

Pifer, Linda K. “The Development of Young American Adults’ Attitudes About the Risks Associated With Nuclear Power.” Public Understanding of Science 5, no. 2 (1995).

"Step 7: Drive Engagement and Communicate Results." US Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, www.eere.energy.gov/energydataguide/step7.shtml. Accessed 2 Aug. 2024.