The Silent Majority Problem: Why 71% Support for Energy Storage Still Isn’t Enough

There’s something deeply frustrating about the energy storage industry right now, and a new report from Firetrace International perfectly captures why. According to their survey of 4,000 Americans, 71% of people actually support battery energy storage systems (BESS) in their local communities. That’s a substantial majority – nearly three out of four Americans are on board with this technology. Yet somehow, project after project gets delayed or outright killed by community opposition.

Joe DeBellis, Firetrace’s Global Head of Clean Energy, puts it bluntly: “We found that only 29% of the Americans that were polled oppose energy storage, and that’s overwhelmingly the minority there, but that minority is very vocal about their concerns.” This vocal minority managed to reject or delay upwards of nine separate BESS projects in just the last year alone. Think about that for a moment – a 29% minority is effectively blocking infrastructure that 71% of people want.

This isn’t just a numbers game or an abstract policy debate. We’re talking about real economic and environmental consequences playing out across American communities as of November 2025. Battery energy storage systems are critical infrastructure for grid stability, renewable energy integration, and reducing electricity costs for consumers. When these projects get delayed or cancelled, everyone pays the price through higher energy bills, less reliable power, and slower progress toward decarbonization goals.

The irony here is particularly striking when you consider what communities are actually giving up. As Brian Cashion from Firetrace noted in an earlier analysis, local communities often remain “unaware of the significant benefits that BESS sites can create, including lower electricity bills, cleaner air and more reliable power.” The very people who could benefit most from these projects are sometimes the ones opposing them, largely due to misinformation or unfounded safety concerns.

The Fire Safety Perception Problem

Let’s be honest about what’s driving much of this opposition – fire safety concerns have become the boogeyman of the battery storage industry. Every high-profile battery fire incident, particularly those affecting residential areas, creates ripple effects that extend far beyond the actual incident site. The psychological impact of these events significantly outweighs their statistical frequency, creating a perception problem that the industry has struggled to address effectively.

Stephen Cummings from Honeywell Building Automation (Honeywell, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina) recently emphasized that “the BESS industry has to do a better job of representing the safety of BESS projects to the public.” This isn’t just about better marketing – it’s about fundamental communication strategy. Cummings argues that the industry must take “a proactive stance in both communication and standard setting,” which means “engaging early with local stakeholders, explaining the safety measures in place and pushing for modern codes and standards that reflect today’s technologies.”

The challenge is that modern fire suppression systems have evolved dramatically. Companies like Firetrace International, based in Scottsdale, Arizona, manufacture sophisticated fire detection and suppression systems specifically designed for renewable energy applications. These systems can detect fires in their earliest stages and suppress them before they spread, but the public largely doesn’t understand these technological advances. When people hear “battery fire,” they’re often thinking of smartphone batteries or early electric vehicle incidents, not industrial-grade storage systems with multiple layers of safety protection.

Alejandro Schnakofsky, CTO of Prevalon (a company focused on energy storage safety solutions), has pointed out that the industry needs to go “beyond the minimum compliance thresholds.” This means not just meeting current safety standards, but exceeding them and clearly communicating those enhanced safety measures to communities. The problem is that technical safety discussions often get lost in translation when presented to concerned residents who may not have engineering backgrounds.

The Economics of Opposition

What makes this situation particularly complex is the economic reality behind community opposition. Property values and local aesthetics are legitimate concerns for homeowners, even if they support renewable energy in principle. A large industrial facility, regardless of its environmental benefits, can impact the character of a neighborhood and potentially affect property values. This creates a classic NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) scenario where people support the technology conceptually but oppose specific implementations near their homes.

The financial stakes are substantial for all parties involved. Battery energy storage projects typically require investments ranging from $300 to $600 per kilowatt-hour of capacity, with utility-scale projects often involving tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. When a project gets delayed by community opposition, developers face carrying costs, regulatory delays, and potential cancellation of power purchase agreements. These costs ultimately get passed through to consumers in various forms, creating a hidden tax on the very communities that might benefit from the projects.

From a developer’s perspective, the current situation creates significant project risk. Companies like Fluence Energy (headquartered in Arlington, Virginia), Tesla (Austin, Texas), and Powin Energy (Tualatin, Oregon) are major players in the BESS market, but they all face similar challenges when it comes to community acceptance. Even with strong technical solutions and proven safety records, these companies must navigate increasingly complex local approval processes that can add months or years to project timelines.

The competitive landscape is also shifting as companies recognize that community engagement capabilities are becoming as important as technical capabilities. Developers who can successfully navigate local opposition have a significant advantage over those who focus purely on technology and economics. This is creating new specializations within the industry, with some companies developing dedicated community relations teams and others partnering with local engagement specialists.

Consider the broader market context: the US energy storage market was valued at approximately $8.1 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $18.6 billion by 2030, representing a compound annual growth rate of around 15%. However, these growth projections assume that projects can actually get built and connected to the grid. If community opposition continues to delay or kill significant numbers of projects, these market forecasts may prove overly optimistic.

The situation becomes even more complex when you consider the regulatory environment. States like California, New York, and Massachusetts have aggressive renewable energy mandates that essentially require large amounts of battery storage to be deployed. California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program has allocated over $1.4 billion for energy storage projects, while New York’s Energy Storage Roadmap calls for 6,000 MW of storage by 2030. These policy goals create a fundamental tension – governments are mandating storage deployment while local communities retain the power to block individual projects.

International comparisons reveal how unusual the American situation has become. Countries like Germany and Australia have deployed battery storage at scale with significantly less community opposition, partly due to different regulatory frameworks and partly due to more proactive community engagement strategies. In Australia, the Hornsdale Power Reserve (developed by Tesla and Neoen) became a celebrated success story that actually increased local support for similar projects. The key difference was transparent communication about benefits, risks, and safety measures from the project’s inception.

The financial implications extend beyond individual projects to the broader energy transition timeline. Goldman Sachs estimates that the US needs approximately $4 trillion in clean energy infrastructure investment by 2030 to meet climate goals, with battery storage representing a significant portion of that total. If community opposition continues to delay projects at the current rate, meeting these investment targets becomes increasingly difficult, potentially pushing back decarbonization timelines and increasing overall costs.

What’s particularly striking about the Firetrace survey results is how they contradict the narrative that often emerges from public hearings and local news coverage. Media coverage of energy storage projects tends to focus on opposition voices because conflict generates more engagement than support. This creates a feedback loop where opposition appears more widespread than it actually is, potentially emboldening the vocal minority while discouraging the silent majority from speaking up.

The path forward requires a fundamental shift in how the industry approaches community engagement. Rather than treating public outreach as a regulatory checkbox to be completed after technical and financial decisions are made, successful developers are beginning to involve communities in the planning process from the earliest stages. This means conducting surveys like Firetrace’s to understand actual community sentiment, addressing specific local concerns through project design modifications, and creating ongoing communication channels that extend beyond formal regulatory requirements.

The stakes couldn’t be higher as we move deeper into 2025. Battery energy storage isn’t just another infrastructure category – it’s a critical enabler for the entire renewable energy transition. Without adequate storage capacity, wind and solar projects become less valuable, grid stability becomes more challenging, and electricity costs remain higher than necessary. The 71% of Americans who support these projects deserve to have their voices heard as loudly as the 29% who oppose them. The question is whether the industry can figure out how to make that happen before more critical infrastructure gets delayed or cancelled by a vocal minority.

This post was written after reading 71% of Americans surveyed support energy storage, but ‘vocal minority’ kill or delay projects. I’ve added my own analysis and perspective.

Disclaimer: This blog is not a news outlet. The content represents the author’s personal views. Investment decisions are the sole responsibility of the investor, and we assume no liability for any losses incurred based on this content.