Originally published in AESP's Energy Intel (4th Quarter, 2025) – https://energyintel.aesp.org/2025-Q4-For-The-People/page/34
The participation paradox
Across North America, utilities and program administrators continue investing in incentive-based energy programs designed to reduce emissions, lower system strain and improve affordability. These programs are typically well-structured, supported by sound evaluation and backed by meaningful investment.
On paper, they should be easy wins. The technology is proven, incentives are compelling and customer benefits are real.
Yet participation rates often stall. Evaluations across North America repeatedly confirm this pattern: studies from LBNL and ACEEE show that even well-designed programs with attractive incentives routinely underperform on uptake, especially among renters, rural households and income-qualified customers.
The industry often points to the usual explanations: low customer awareness, complex upgrade processes, contractor shortages or competing household priorities. Those are real barriers, but they aren't always the root cause. Many customers know these programs exist yet remain skeptical about engaging in them.
A deeper barrier is a lack of motive transparency.
People don't reject sustainability, they reject spin. Participation rises when motive becomes transparent.
People understand incentives and savings. What they don't always trust is why institutions want them to participate. When communications focus on technical steps or rebate details before establishing purpose, they reinforce skepticism rather than reduce it.
People don't reject sustainability. They reject spin. And when motive is unclear, even the clearest message reads as persuasion instead of partnership.
Customers are perceptive. They notice rate increases, infrastructure investments, and policy shifts. When they can't connect these signals to the reason behind a program's outreach, they assume the motive must be self-serving.
Participation requires more than clear instruction, it requires clear intent.
Electrification, extreme weather events and rising energy costs are increasing pressure on households and utilities alike. In a moment defined by rapid change, trust is not a "nice-to-have." It is a prerequisite for any program that relies on household action.
Why motive matters
Most energy programs were created to serve both institutional and public goals; reducing system strain, improving comfort, lowering household bills and accelerating decarbonization. From an industry perspective, the purpose is obvious. But to the average customer, these drivers can feel abstract, distant or politically charged.
Without a clearly communicated purpose, customers are left asking:
- If I participate, who really benefits?
- Why is this being offered now?
- Why are utilities so eager for me to upgrade?
- Is this really about my household savings?
These questions are seldom addressed directly in communications, even though they sit at the center of customer skepticism. Studies in consumer psychology and energy program design show that when people cannot identify an institution’s motive, they default to self-protective assumptions, often believing the provider benefits more than they do.
This is reinforced across North American research, NREL participation studies, LBNL demand-side work, MIT Energy Initiative consumer research and ACEEE program evaluations, which consistently find that perceived institutional motive is one of the strongest predictors of willingness to participate.
Understanding the motive ecosystem
When customers ask, "Why are you paying me to weatherize my house?" they aren't being cynical; they're trying to confirm alignment. They want to know whether the program's goals match their own and that the provider's interests don't conflict with theirs.
The truth is that energy programs serve three overlapping motive layers. Each is legitimate. Each is essential. Each is rarely communicated clearly.
System Benefits (Utility/Provider)
- Lower peak demand
- Reduced grid congestion
- Avoided or deferred capital investments
- Meeting efficiency or emission reduction mandates
- Improved long-term system affordability
Community Benefits
- Reduced collective energy burden
- Improved resilience during extreme weather
- Supporting public health through safer, more stable homes
- Creating local jobs and skill development pathways
- Helping communities adapt to electrification and changing demand
Household Benefits
- Lower monthly bills
- Increased comfort, safety and home value
- Reduced maintenance issues
- Access to improvements that may otherwise be unaffordable
- More predictable energy costs
When programs fail to articulate these shared benefits, customers often assume the most self-serving explanation: "This must be for them, not for us."
Clarifying this motive ecosystem does not dilute the message. It strengthens it, demonstrating the program exists because everyone benefits, just in different ways. When the public understands the full picture, they're more likely to buy in.
From instruction to invitation
Energy programs have traditionally communicated in an instructive voice: "Here's what to do. Here's the process. Here's the incentive."
This instructional tone can be efficient, but it rarely fosters belief. Instructions explain action, not alignment. Multiple communication studies, including those from ACEEE and MIT Energy Initiative, find that purpose-led framing increases comprehension, trust and stated willingness to participate. When people hear "why" before "how," message receptivity increases significantly.
Invitation shifts this dynamic. Invitation begins with purpose, explaining the shared value and the collective benefit. It names why the offering exists, what it means for households and communities and why the institution believes in it.
Compare the two voices:
Instructional voice: "Sign up for a heat pump rebate. Save money. Complete these steps."
Invitational voice: "Extreme weather puts a strain on the energy grid and costs for everyone. This program helps households stay comfortable year-round while reducing demand on the system. Here's how it works."
The Transparency-to-Trust framework
The Transparency-to-Trust Framework provides a practical model for aligning communication with public belief. It addresses the foundational question customers carry into any program interaction: “Why should I believe this?”
Declare Intent Clearly
You should directly state your purpose rather than imply it. Customers need to hear both the public rationale (lower bills, healthier homes, community resilience) and the institutional rationale (grid management, avoided costs, regulatory obligations). This doesn’t have to appear everywhere, just as long as it is available somewhere.
Before: “Upgrade to a heat pump and receive a rebate.”
After: “Winter cold snaps strain our local energy grid. Heat pumps ease that strain while keeping your home comfortable and more affordable. Here’s how it works.”
Share Authorship
Customers trust messages more when they can see themselves in the language and perspective.
Sharing authorship does not require formal panels or co-governance. It simply means involving real people in shaping how programs are explained.
Lightweight authorship-sharing tools:
- Five-person language tests
- Reviewing call-center transcripts
- Asking installers what questions they hear most often
- Checking neighborhood digital forums to understand misconceptions
- Running “explain this program in your own words” exercises
Even small insights reveal major clarity gaps. And when customer language informs outreach, the message becomes more relatable and trustworthy.
Demonstrate Impact
Customers don’t read program reports. They notice results. Demonstrating impact means showing outcomes at the household or neighborhood scale, not just at the system level.
Impact that builds trust:
- Monthly bill changes in plain numbers
- Real people sharing stories of staying warm through extreme weather
- Community members sharing before/after experiences
- Visible local job stories
Evaluations from the Weatherization Assistance Program and multiple Canadian provincial programs show that lived-experience impact is one of the strongest trust builders, often outperforming technical data or system-level reporting.
Bridging the missing motive
Even when motive is clearly stated, customers may still misunderstand it. The largest culprits of that misunderstanding are communication formats, channels, or language that don't reflect how people actually understand information.
These tools help bridge the gap:
- Use Lived-Experience Storytelling: Short, local stories anchor motive in reality and make programs feel relevant to everyday life.
- Use Customer Language, Not Program Language: Drafty rooms and cold spots communicate better than air-sealing gaps or insulation deficiencies.
- Use Trusted Messengers: Creators, neighbors, contractors, and community groups often carry more credibility than institutional voices, especially when trust is fragile.
- Optimize for AI Visibility: AI tools increasingly act as the first point of contact between the public and a program. When purpose and benefits aren't stated clearly online, AI surfaces vague or incomplete summaries. Consistent, plain-language content strengthens how programs are represented in AI answers and ensures motive is interpreted accurately.
- Always Lead With Shared Benefit: Reinforce household, community, and system-level benefits across all communication channels so customers consistently see the alignment.
Strengthening communication in active programs
Motive transparency doesn't mean you need to redesign a program. It can be integrated into active outreach cycles.
Practical steps include:
- Leading all materials with purpose rather than process
- Running fast comprehension tests before launching new campaigns
- Tracking credibility or trust along with participation
- Refreshing language seasonally to reflect evolving customer concerns
Trust builds slowly but compounds quickly once motive becomes part of the communication fabric.
Participation is built on belief
The energy transition depends on public participation and participation depends on belief. Belief that programs are designed with households in mind, belief that benefits are shared and belief that institutions are being honest about their goals.
When people understand why a program exists and see themselves reflected in its purpose, communication stops sounding like an instruction and starts feeling like an invitation. And when communication feels like an invitation, participation follows.
Trust is not a finishing touch. It's the foundation. Purpose is not background context. It's the entry point. And motive is not optional. It's the missing piece that makes every other message credible.
