Is Early Community Engagement a Good Thing?

Ask anyone working in energy or infrastructure development whether early community engagement is important, and the answer will almost always be yes. But ask whether it’s easy, or even strategically safe, and the conversation becomes more complicated.

The truth is that early engagement with communities can be one of the most powerful tools for long-term project success—but it’s also one of the most misunderstood. At its best, it builds trust, reduces resistance, and helps shape projects that reflect both technical needs and local values. At its worst, it can lead to confusion, premature backlash, or unrealistic expectations.

So the real question isn’t whether early community engagement is good—it’s whether we’re doing it well.

The Timing Dilemma

By the time a project is ready for public discussion, a significant amount of planning has already taken place. Site selection, funding pathways, preliminary engineering—all of it tends to happen behind closed doors for good reason: to protect confidentiality, manage risk, and ensure the idea is even feasible.

However, communities don’t experience projects as abstract concepts. They experience them as changes to their daily lives, landscapes, and local dynamics. And when a project appears to drop out of nowhere, resistance often spikes—not necessarily because people oppose the idea, but because they feel excluded from the process. People tend to fear the unknown.

This is where early engagement can change the trajectory. By opening conversations sooner, there’s room to build understanding before the rumor mill takes over. There’s also more opportunity to gather meaningful input—not just reaction.

Still, timing is delicate. Go too early, and the information may be too tentative to be helpful. Go too late, and the community may feel like a rubber stamp.

Listening vs. Telling

One of the most important distinctions in early engagement is the difference between informing and listening. Community meetings, mailers, and open houses often focus on telling people what’s coming. That has its place. But meaningful engagement begins with listening—creating space for questions, perspectives, and concerns, even when they’re hard to hear.

This can feel risky. Not every community member is going to be supportive. Emotions can run high, and misinformation can spread quickly. But the alternative—waiting until the opposition is fully formed before opening dialogue—can create even greater delays, tension, and mistrust. If you lose ground to opposition in these early days, it is unlikely you will ever catch up in the race for public support.

Early engagement works best when it’s not just about checking a box or getting ahead of complaints. It’s about starting relationships rooted in transparency and mutual respect.

Empathy, Again

As with landowner conversations, empathy is essential. It’s easy to see a project from the perspective of its goals—more energy, better infrastructure, stronger resilience. But for people who live near the site, that’s not always what they see first. They see trucks, fences, changing skylines, and uncertainty.

Taking the time to understand those reactions—not just dismiss or “manage” them—is what builds trust over the long haul. It may not change every outcome, but it shapes how conversations unfold. It can mean the difference between grudging acceptance and real cooperation.

Setting Expectations

Of course, not every comment will be acted upon. And not every concern will be fully resolved. One of the challenges of early engagement is making sure that participation doesn’t lead to unrealistic expectations about influence or project scope.

That’s why clarity is as important as openness. Communities deserve to know which parts of a project are flexible, and which are already determined. They should be invited into conversations where their input matters—not where decisions are already final.

Being honest about constraints isn’t a liability. It’s a sign of respect.

When It’s Done Well

When early engagement is approached thoughtfully, the benefits ripple outward. Projects face fewer legal challenges. Landowners feel more respected. Permitting moves more smoothly. And communities are more likely to see themselves as part of the solution, not just an obstacle to be navigated.

It’s not about public relations. It’s about public relationships.

And those take time, consistency, and a willingness to engage even when the path forward is uncertain.

So—Is It Worth It?

Yes. But it’s not a shortcut.

Early community engagement is a long-game strategy. It takes investment upfront—of time, energy, and listening. It asks teams to speak plainly, to show up regularly, and to follow through. It doesn’t guarantee approval, and it won’t erase every objection.

But it builds something much harder to manufacture later: trust.

And in a field where timelines, permits, and access all depend on human relationships, trust is the infrastructure underneath everything else.